V 


A 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/lettersfromaristOOIeec 


V 


LETTERS 


FROM 

ARISTARCHUS  TO  PHILEMON ; 

IN  WHICH 

THE  DISTINGUISHING  DOCTRINES 

OF  THE  GOSPEL 

ARE  DISCUSSED,  AND  OBJECTIONS  STATED 

AND  ANSWERED. 

_ _ 1/  ' 

BY  CHAUNCEY  LEE,  D.  D, 

PASTOR  OF  A  CHURCH  IN  MARLBOROUGH,  (CONN.) 

For  of  him,  and  through  him,  and  to  him,  are  all  things :  to 
whom  be  glory  forever.  Amen.  paul. 


HARTFORD : 

PRINTED  BY  HANMER  AND  COMSTOCK. 


1833. 


INTRODUCTION. 


It  could  hardly  have  been  expected,  that  in  the 
present  day,  the  necessity  would  arise  of  going  over 
the  ground  of  the  Arminian  controversy.  After 
what  has  been  published  by  Hopkins,  Bellamy,  Scott 
and  Dwight,  and  a  host  of  American  divines  ;  and 
more  especially  the  complete  triumph  of  the  immor¬ 
tal  Edwards,  on  this  field  ;  it  might  well  have  been 
supposed,  that  the  occasion  of  renewing  this  contro¬ 
versy,  would  never  recur.  Who  could  imagine,  that, 
in  the  next  generation,  men  would  be  found,  and 
men  too  of  great  pretensions  to  reasoning  powers, 
who  would  venture  to  revive  the  questions  con¬ 
cerning  moral  suasion ,  and  the  self  determining 
power  of  the  will ;  with  confident  claims  of  high 
improvements  in  Christian  theology  ?  But  so  it  is  : 
and  the  tide  of  popular  opinion  seems  to  be  setting 
strongly  in  favour  of  these  specious  and  flattering 
doctrines  :  and  the  friends  of  truth  are  called  to  ad¬ 
dress  themselves  in  good  earnest,  to  the  work  of  de¬ 
fence.  This  duty  is  as  necessary  and  imperious,  as 
if  these  errors  had  but  now  made  their  first  appear¬ 
ance,  and  never  before  been  the  subject  of  contro¬ 
versy.  There  is  but  one  view  which  affords  a  so¬ 
lution  of  this  mystery.  A  selfish  system  of  religion 
men  naturally  love,  and  most  readily  embrace — for, 


IV. 


it  cherishes  their  independent  feelings — fosters  pride, 
and  gives  them  an  easy  passport  to  heaven.  All 
men  are  born  Arminians.  Pride  and  self  confidence 
are  characteristics  of  human  nature.  Hence,  they 
are  at  heart  opposed  to  the  humbling  doctrines  of  the 
gospel,  and  the  most  sophistical  arguments  in  oppo¬ 
sition  to  them  received  as  sound  and  conclusive ; 
while  their  feelings  become  more  and  more  strongly 
enlisted  in  the  cause  of  error.  If,  in  the  progress  of 
truth,  one  generation,  by  special  grace,  be  in  a  good 
degree  redeemed  from  error  ;  the  next  is  found  in¬ 
volved  in  the  same  thraldom.  Every  successive  gen¬ 
eration,  must  be  successively  redeemed  from  error, 
by  essentially  the  same  means  ;  and  all  the  labours 
ol  past  ages,  and  past  defenders  of  the  faith,  will  avail 
only  to  furnish  materials  for  renewed  defence.  The 
ground  must  be  repeatedly  gone  over.  The  argu¬ 
ments  which  have  again  and  again  proved  decisive, 
must  again  be  applied.  In  manner  and  form  they 
may  be  new  modelled ;  but  in  substance,  they  are 
and  must  be  the  same. 

Among  other  causes,  powerfully  cooperating  to 
produce  this  necessity  is  the  fact  that  men  will  al¬ 
ways  be  found,  disposed  to  take  advantage  of  this 
obliquity  of  human  nature,  for  the  purpose  of  prose- 
lytism.  It  is  well  known  that  great  pains  are  taken, 
and  systematic  measures  pursued  in  the  present  day. 
The  pulpit  and  the  press  are  employed ;  and  licen¬ 
tiate  preachers  of  this  stamp  continually  going  forth 
—widely  disseminating  the  pernicious  doctrines  of 
Arminius — misleading  the  ignorant  and  unthinking ; 
sowing  discord  and  division  in  churches,  and  de- 


nouncing  as  fools  and  formalists,  the  regular  and  or- 
thodox  pastors. 

Such  and  so  great  are  the  evils  existing,  and 
threatening  the  interests  of  pure  religion  in  our  coun¬ 
try  ;  and  these  are  the  apologies  offered  for  calling 
the  attention  of  the  Christian  publick  to  the  discus¬ 
sion  presented  in  the  following  pages.  The  author 
confides  not  in  his  own  talents,  but  in  the  force  of 
divine  truth — the  candour  of  the  pious — the  author¬ 
ity  of  God’s  word — but  above  all,  the  blessing  of  his 
Spirit.  True  indeed  the  principles  are  of  ancient 
date,  and  the  chief  arguments  are  those  in  substance 
which  have  been  repeatedly  and  successfully  advan¬ 
ced.  But  the  occasion  is  new.  A  new  generation 
has  arisen,  which  reads  not  the  writings  of  Hop¬ 
kins,  or  Edwards.  These  have  with  the  generality, 
gone  into  the  lumber-room  of  old  and  obsolete  au¬ 
thors  ;  and  the  Pelagian  spirit  of  human  nature  is 
manifesting  itself,  by  unequivocal  signs  in  some  of 
our  periodical  publications,  and  theological  semina¬ 
ries. — Human  efficiency,  and  self  will  are  contami¬ 
nating  our  revivals  of  religion.  And  now  what  is 
to  be  done,  but  to  apply  the  balm  of  truth  to  those 
wounds,  which  will  otherwise  spread  disease  and 
death  through  the  whole  body.  But  while  there  is 
a  cause  of  truth  in  the  world,  to  be  defended  against 
the  errors  and  abuses  of  corrupt  nature,  this  militant 
state  of  things  will  continue.  The  millenium  alone 
will  end  the  controversy. 

The  author  of  the  following  pages  has  endeavour^ 
ed  to  present  a  fair  view  of  the  arguments  and  ob¬ 
jections  of  his  opponents,  and  to  meet  those  argu- 

1  * 


VI. 


ments  and  objections  with  sound  logic  and  divine 
testimony.  The  epistolary  form  being  more  famil¬ 
iar,  has  been  adopted — desiring  that  the  attention  of 
all  may  be  drawn,  to  subjects  in  which  all  are  deep¬ 
ly  interested.  The  whole  is  committed  to  the  Spirit 
of  truth,  with  earnest  prayer  that  it  may  in  some 
degree  contribute  to  promote  the  cause  of  evangelic¬ 
al  piety,  the  salvation  of  men,  and  the  glory  of  God. 


CONTENTS. 


LETTER  I. 

The  original  and  fallen  state  of  man; — what  our  natural  character; — 
the  kind  and  degree  of  human  depravity.  Page  9. 

LETTER  II. 

The  same  subject  continued ; — applied  to  infants ;  illustrated  and 
proved  by  Scripture.  19. 

LETTER  III. 

On  the  doctrine  of  Election  and  Predestination  ;  and  the  persever¬ 
ance  of  Saints.  29. 

LETTER  IV. 

Sin  derived  from  Adam  to  his  posterity  by  divine  constitution — not 
imputed.  Spiritual  death,  guilt  and  not  punishment.  No  proof  of 
the  moral  purity  of  children,  either  from  Scripture,  or  their  natural 
amiable  qualities.  Conscience  defined  and  shown  lobe  consistent 
with  total  depravity.  44. 

LETTER  V. 

Natural  and  moral  impotence  distinguished.  Regeneration  an  un¬ 
sought  grace — effected  by  the  immediate,  instantaneous  and  irre- 
sistable  operation  of  the  Spirit  of  God.  57. 

LETTER  VI. 

Free  moral  agency  explained,  and  shown  to  be  consistent  with  abso¬ 
lute  dependence.  The  doctrine  of  a  self  determining  power  in  the 
human  will,  examined  and  refuted.  71. 

.  LETTER  VII. 

Regeneration  wrought  by  the  sovereign  power  of  God,  exclusive  of 
the  agency  of  its  subject.  80. 

LETTER  VIII. 

Universal  divine  agency,  explained  and  vindicated  from  Scripture 
and  Reason.  98. 

LETTER  IX. 

The  strivings  of  the  divine  Spirit,  what — have  no  tendency  to  change 
the  sinner’s  heart — therefore  consistent  with  hardening  his  heart. 


•  •  • 

Vlll 

Conviction,  what — its  design  and  benefit.  God’s  will  respects  not 
his  commands,  but  his  purposes.  117. 

LETTER  X. 

Universal  Redemption  examined,  and  shown  to  be  unfounded  in 
Scripture.  129. 

LETTER  XI. 

Universal  sufficiency  of  grace  to  destroy  the  power  of  sin  no  conse¬ 
quence  of  the  atonement  of  Christ  5  and  not  taught  in  the  word  of 
God.  -  141. 

LETTER  XII. 

The  sovereignty  of  God  consistent  with  the  equity  of  his  government. 
His  sovereignty  distinguished  from  his  independence.  Discrimin¬ 
ating  grace  asserted  and  defended.  153. 

LETTER  XIII. 

Election  consistent  with  the  free  and  universal  invitations  of  the  gos¬ 
pel;  and  with  the  use  and  benefit  of  means.  164. 

LETTER  XIV. 

The  doctrine  of  election  consistent  with  the  divine  impartiality.  174. 

LETTER  XV. 

The  same  subject  continued — and  the  distinction  between 
and  distributive  justice  stated  and  applied. 

LETTER  XVI. 

Conditional  election ;  examined  and  its  absurdity  exposed. 

LETTER  XVII. 

The  doctrine  of  predestination  has  no  tendency  to  licentiousness, 
but  to  the  greatest  moral  purity  : — affording  also  the  highest  and 
only  encouragement  to  the  duty  of  prayer.  201. 

LETTER  XVIII. 

^ ^ 

The  doctrine  defended  against  sundry  common  cavils  of  its  opposers — 
and  the  correspondence  closed  with  a  solemn  and  affectionate  ex¬ 
hortation.  210. 


general 

182. 

193. 


LETTER  I. 


My  Dear  Friend, 

That  we  have  embraced  different  religious  senti¬ 
ments,  and  that  our  views  of  some  of  the  fundamental 
points  in  the  gospel  scheme  are  essentially  diverse,  is 
a  fact  as  disagreeable  as  it  is  true.  Both  cannot  be 
right.  Opposite  extremes  can  never  be  united  in  a 
common  centre  :  nor  is  it  the  part  of  Christian  can¬ 
dour,  but  of  sceptical  liberality,  to  depreciate  senti¬ 
ment,  confound  distinctions,  and  reconcile  contradic¬ 
tions.  Place  the  door  on  this  hinge,  and  it  will  open 
immeasurably  wide.  Once  admit  that  it  is  of  no  con¬ 
sequence  what  the  man’s  religious  sentiments,  if  he 
but  believe  sincerely  and  practice  according  to  his 
creed,  and  you  will  have  nothing  to  reserve  ; — no  such 
thing  as  truth  in  the  moral  world  ; — the  religion  of  Je¬ 
sus  would  claim  no  preeminence  to  the  wisdom  of  Pla¬ 
to  or  Seneca  ;  and  the  arms  of  charity  expand  alike  to 
encircle  the  Christian  and  the  infidel,  the  moral  and 
the  profane. 

On  this  point,  I  need  not  dwell.  We  both  believe 
there  is  such  a  thing  as  truth  ;  and  that  it  can  suffer 
no  variation  from  the  perverse  humours  of  mankind  ; — 
but,  like  its  author,  is  immutable  and  eternal. 

This  gem,  whose  price  is  above  rubies,  is  attainable 
to  the  honest  dispassionate  inquirer.  We  are  profes¬ 
sing  to  seek  it.  Let  us  do  it  with  such  views  ;  and  may 
the  Blessed  Spirit  of  all  truth  direct  and  succeed  our 
inquiries.  Let  us  be  serious  in  so  serious  a  cause  ; — 
for,  the  result  of  the  proposed  discussion,  may  be  no 
less  important,  than  our  eternal  salvation. 

I  begin  then  by  remarking  that  there  are  some  im¬ 
portant  distinctions  which  you  do  not  make,  besure, 
to  any  practical  effect,  and  are  thence,  led  into  mista- 


10 


ken  views  of  divine  truth.  You  do  not,  as  I  think, 
correctly  distinguish  between  moral  being  and  moral 
character — between  the  love  of  benevolence,  and  the 
love  of  complacence — between  abhorrence  and  enmi¬ 
ty  ; — between  the  holy  anger  of  God,  and  the  passion¬ 
ate  anger  of  men  ; — between  natural  and  moral  abli- 
ty  ; — between  the  conscience  and  the  heart ; — between 
the  agency  of  God,  and  that  of  the  creature  ; — between 
restraining,  and  sanctifying  grace  ; — and  between  the 
natural  affections  of  the  human  mind,  which  are  as  va¬ 
rious  as  the  countenance,  and  the  moral  affections, 
which  are  invariable  and  uniform.  And  can  you  say 
that  here  are  no  grounds  of  distinction  ?  not  a  real  but 
merely  verbal  difference?  If  so,  there  can  be  no  reli¬ 
gious  system  formed  ; — if  otherwise,  yours  must  em¬ 
brace  principles  which  will  forever  wage  war  with 
each  other. 

That  we  may  fully  know  each  other’s  ground,  I  shall 
in  the  first  place  sketch  an  analysis  of  some  of  the  es¬ 
sential  points  in  the  scheme  of  doctrines,  which  I  em¬ 
brace  as  divine  truth.  The  way  will  then  be  prepar¬ 
ed  for  a  more  intelligent  and  useful  discussion  of  those 
parts  of  it,  in  which  we  are  disagreed. 

Our  first  inquiry,  then  must  be,  what  is  our  moral 
condition  by  nature  ;  or  the  character  and  state,  in 
which  we  are  born  ?  Here  is  a  point  to  be  determined, 
that  will  materially  affect  the  issue  of  the  grand  ques¬ 
tion  between  us.  It  is,  I  conceive,  a  cardinal  point, 
upon  which  the  whole  argument  must  eventually  turn. 
And  I  recollect  with  pleasure,  the  candour  with  which 
you  made  this  fair  and  honest  concession  at  our  part¬ 
ing  interview,  that,  the  merits  of  the  whole  dispute 
were  poised  in  this  scale — Are  infants  possessed  of 
moral  purity  ? — Your  scheme  stands  or  falls,  with  the 
affirmative  position — mine,  with  the  negative.  Let  us 
then  attend  closely  to  the  investigation  of  this  point — 
for  here  I  join  issue,  and  stake  the  whole  controversy 
on  the  result. 

That,  mankind  are  naturally,  in  a  depraved  and  un¬ 
holy  state,  appears  to  me  a  truth  confirmed  by  the  uni¬ 
ted  testimony  of  scripture  and  experience  ; — and  I  hes¬ 
itate  not  to  say,  that  wherever  any  right  notions  of  De- 


11 


ity,  and  of  our  relation  and  obligation  to  him  as  crea- 
tures  are  known  and  realized;  this  doctrine  will  be 
embraced,  as  an  obvious  and  important  article  of  reli¬ 
gion. 

An  impartial  examination  of  the  exercises  and  affec¬ 
tions  of  our  own  minds — together  with  a  view  of  the 
external  displays  of  divine  justice,  in  the  infliction  of 
natural  evils,  may  be  sufficient,  to  convince  us  of  our 
want  of  original  uprightness — of  our  being  in  a  state 
of  guilt,  and  under  the  power  and  condemnation  of  sin. 

From  the  Scriptures  we  learn  that  all  mankind  have 
descended  from  one  common  parent— that  he  was  cre¬ 
ated  in  innocence  and  after  the  moral  image  of  God  ; — 
that  with  him  God  entered  into  a  covenant  of  life,  as 
it  is  called,  because  eternal  life  was  the  good  promis¬ 
ed,  “  upon  condition  of  his  perfect  obedience,  forbid¬ 
ding  him  to  eat  of  the  tree  of  knowledge  of  good  and 
evil  upon  the  pain  of  death.”  See  Gen.  ii.  16,  IT. 

Thus  was  the  first  man  upon  probation,  in  a  state  of 
holiness,  unconfirmed  ;  and  his  will,  though  liable  to 
change,  yet  attempered  to  the  divine  will,  and  capable 
of  rendering  a  perfect  and  persevering  obedience  to  all 
the  divine  commands. 

In  this  covenant  made  with  Adam,  all  mankind  were 
interested,  as  he  was  by  divine  appointment  consti¬ 
tuted  the  head  and  representative  of  his  race — so  that 
they  should  all  take  their  moral  characters  from  him. 
Not  that  Adam’s  sin  by  any  transfer  of  guilt  should  be 
our  sin— or  that  the  perfect  obedience  of  Adam  had  he 
stood,  would  have  been  in  itself  more  than  sufficient  for 
his  own  justification  ; — but,  that,  upon  condition  of  his 
obedience,  his  children  should  be  brought  into  exist¬ 
ence,  in  a  state  of  holiness  confirmed. 

Now  as  this  moral  image  of  God,  was  an  absolute 
gift  of  the  Creator,  and  superadded  to  the  work  of  cre¬ 
ation,  none  may  pretend  to  say,  that  God  might  not 
justly  and  consistently,  either  withhold  or  grant  the 
same,  to  whom,  in  what  manner,  and  upon  what  con¬ 
dition  he  saw  fit.  God  was  under  no  obligation  to 
have  conferred  it  upon  Adam,  any  more  than  upon  his 
posterity  since  the  forfeiture  ; — for  Adam  sinned  and 
lost  the  covenanted  blessing. 


12 


Thus  mankind  by  Adam’s  forfeiture  of  the  moral 
image  of  God,  became  fallen  depraved  creatures.  Ad¬ 
am  we  read,  “  begat  a  son  in  his  own  image,  after 
his  likeness.”  This  cannot  intend,  merely  that  Seth 
was  born,  in  the  bodily  shape  and  figure  of  a  man  ; 
but  that  he  was  born  possessed  of  the  same  moral  char¬ 
acter  with  his  father — a  true  copy,  or  fac  simile  of  the 
original.  It  is  explained  by  the  account  of  Adam’s 
creation,  and  has  the  same  extent  of  signification  as 
the  same  terms  which  are  there  used — “  And  God  said, 
let  us  make  man  in  our  image  after  our  likeness .” — 
And  Adam’s  son  begat  his  son  in  his  own  image  after 
his  likeness — and  so  has  every  succeeding  generation, 
down  to  the  present  day. 

The  general  fact  being  established,  let  us  next  in¬ 
quire  into  the  kind  and  degree  of  human  depravity. 

1.  The  kind. — In  what  does  human  depravity  con¬ 
sist  ? 

The  moral  rectitude  of  an  intelligent  being,  which 
stands  opposed  to  his  depravity  consists  in  his  confor¬ 
mity  to  the  Divine  Being,  who  is  the  only  standard  of 
perfection  ; — or  in  other  words,  it  consists  in  a  love  to 
the  divine  excellence  as  such.  Hence  our  depravity  is 
of  a  moral  nature,  and  lies  only  in  the  will; — the  un¬ 
derstanding  being  distinct,  is  not  the  seat  of  depravi¬ 
ty,  nor  but  mediately  affected  ;  and  that  in  proportion 
to  the  degree  of  its  subjection  to  the  influences  of  the 
former. — “  Having  the  understanding  darkened,  being 
alienated  from  the  life  of  God,  through  the  ignorance 
that  is  in  them,  because  of  the  blindness  of  the  heart.” 
(Eph.  iv.  18.)  By  heart,  here,  as  in  all  other  places 
of  scripture,  where  the  word  is  used  in  a  spiritual 
sense,  is  meant  the  affections.  These  are  the  exerci¬ 
ses  of  the  will.  And  the  blindness  of  the  heart,  which 
is  but  another  word  for  hardness  or  insensibility,  as 
the  original  Greek,  might  most  fitly  have  been  render¬ 
ed,  is  assigned,  by  the  apostle,  as  the  cause  of  that  ig¬ 
norance,  through  which  the  understanding  became 
darkened.  This  expresses  the  disaffection  and  enmi¬ 
ty  of  the  heart,  and  is  directly  opposed  to  the  idea, 
that  mental  ignorance  is  the  essence  of  human  deprav¬ 
ity,  and  that  all  we  need  in  order  to  love  the  true  char- 


acter  of  God,  is  to  see  it.  According  to  this  text,  that 
ignorance  of  God  which  there  is  in  mankind  is  the  ef¬ 
fect  and  not  the  cause — it  arises  from  the  contrariety 
of  the  heart — they  are  alienated  from  the  life  of  God — 
this  means  estrangement  of  affection — a  contrariety  of 
moral  temper.  It  is  concluded,  therefore,  that  the  fall 
of  man,  consists  in  the  change  of  his  affections  from 
the  supreme  love  of  God,  to  the  supreme  love  of  self ; 
and  that  the  perverseness  of  the  will  constitutes  de¬ 
pravity. 

2.  The  degree  of  depravity. — On  this  point,  there 
is  a  diversity  of  opinions.  Many  are  disagreed  in  the 
thing  itself ;  and  many  who  are  professedly  agreed  in 
the  doctrine,  draw  different  consequences  from  the 
same  premises  ;  and  build  different  superstructures  up¬ 
on  the  same  foundation. 

For  myself,  I  hesitate  not,  to  embrace  it  as  a  prime 
article  of  faith  and  to  build  upon  it  as  a  foundation 
stone  of  Christianity,  that,  by  natural  birth,  mankind 
are  utterly  destitute  of  holiness,  or  the  moral  image  of 
God — that  the  earliest  exercises  of  infants,  are  the 
same  in  kind,  as  in  adult  years  of  impenitency  ; — that 
is  to  say,  evil  without  mixture ;  or,  in  other  words, 
that  by  nature,  there  is  nothing  in  us  morally  good. — 
As  degrading  as  this  is  to  the  human  character,  I  can- 
not  recede  from  the  sentiment,  without  resisting  the 
conviction  of  truth. 

A  candid  attention  to  the  nature  of  the  will,  joined 
to  a  comparative  view  of  the  nature  of  sin  and  holi¬ 
ness,  were  there  no  other  proofs  in  the  case,  will,  I 
think,  to  the  unbiassed  mind,  establish  the  doctrine  be¬ 
yond  the  reach  of  doubt. 

The  nature  of  the  will  is  to  be  active,  always  in  ex¬ 
ercise  ;  and  it  is  certain  that  it  cannot  love  and  hate, 
choose  and  refuse  the  same  objects,  at  the  same  time, 
and  that  for  the  same  perceptible  qualities.  Neither 
of  two  objects  perfectly  dissimilar,  and  in  their  natures 
opposed,  can  it  view  both  with  complacence.  It  will 
necessarily  choose  the  one  and  refuse  the  other.  Now 
sinning  or  self  gratification  which  is  the  direct  object 
of  choice  to  the  depraved  mind,  being  diametrically 

2 


14 


opposed  to  holiness,  it  is  absurd  to  suppose,  that  a  su¬ 
preme  love  to  the  one  does  not  go  to  the  exclusion  of 
the  other.  It  is  the  true  character  of  the  depraved 
mind,  as  delineated  in  the  word  of  God,  that  it  cannot 
cease  from  sin,  but  is  continually  bringing  forth  fruit 
unto  death  ; — that  it  is  as  prone  to  do  evil,  as  water  is 
to  run  downward,  or  sparks  to  fly  upward — or  in  oth¬ 
er  words,  that  it  has  a  natural  propensity  only  to  sin. 
And  our  Saviour  assures  us  that  “  no  man  can  serve 
two  masters,  for  either  he  will  hate  the  one  and  love 
the  other  ;  or  else  he  will  hold  to  the  one  and  despise 
the  other.  Ye  cannot  serve  God  and  Mammon.” 
Mattk.v i.  24. 

The  principle  is  adopted  by  some,  that  the  human 
mind  when  it  first  comes  into  being,  is,  in  relation  to 
sin  and  holiness,  equipoized,  and  without  any  inclina¬ 
tion  to  either; — that,  it  neither  loves  God  nor  hates 
him — but  is  in  a  state  of  neutrality,  alike  indifferent 
both  to  right  and  wrong.  But  how  this  can  be,  I  con¬ 
fess  myself  unable  to  conceive.  In  my  view,  it  is  in¬ 
consistent  with  the  nature  of  things  and  would  be  an 
anomaly  in  the  moral  world.  A  rational  being,  is  and 
must  be  a  moral  agent,  and  to  suppose  him  destitute  of 
moral  character  implies  a  contradiction.  It  is  incon¬ 
sistent  and  absurd.  Men  do  not  love  the  persons  or 
things  towards  which  they  are  indifferent.  Indiffer¬ 
ence  towards  God  in  a  rational  being,  implies  con¬ 
tempt,  and  is  a  state  of  feeling  highly  criminal.  In¬ 
deed  it  is  impossible  for  men  to  be  neuters  in  their  af¬ 
fections  towards  God  the  supreme  good  ;  or  in  their  in¬ 
clination  towards  moral  good  and  evil.  This  is  es¬ 
tablished  by  the  highest  authority — “  He  that  is  not 
with  me  is  against  me.” 

It  is  with  many  a  favorite  sentiment,  that  the  human 
mind  has  native  powers  to  direct  the  choice  of  the 
will ;  and  the  same  persons  will  admit  the  necessity 
of  a  divine  interposition  to  change  the  sinner's  will 
from  an  evil  to  a  good  choice.  How  these  ideas  can 
be  reconciled  is  difficult  to  apprehend.  If  the  mind 
have  the  native  powers  to  direct  the  choice  of  the  will, 
it  certainly  can  and  does  exercise  them  ;  and  if  so, 
what  need  is  there  of  a  divine  interposition  ?  Why  may 


15 


not  the  mind  that  has  willed  evil,  in  the  exercise  of 
these  its  native  powers,  as  easily  direct  the  choice  of 
the  will,  to  good,  as  to  a  continuance  in  evil  ?  Is  not 
this  confounding  the  distinction  between  divine  and 
human  agency,  by  ascribing  to  the  latter,  that  which  is 
an  appropriate  effect  of  the  former  ?  and  while  avow¬ 
ing  the  very  sentiment  here  advocated,  explaining  it 
in  a  manner  that  amounts  to  a  denial  of  it?  But  waving 
this  thought,  I  proceed  to  inquire  whether  total  moral 
depravity  be  not  as  evident  from  scripture  as  it  is  from 
Reason. 

I.  It  appears  essential  to  the  doctrine  o  £  free  grace. 
This,  all  must  agree,  is  a  scripture-doctrine  and  a 
grand  pillar  of  the  gospel  plan — “  for  by  grace  are  ye 
saved,  through  faith,  and  that  not  of  yourselves,  it  is 
the  gift  of  God.”  Ephesians  ii.  8.  But  if  holiness  be 
a  requisite,  and  indeed  an  essential  part  of  our  salva¬ 
tion,  and  this  we  are  naturally  possessed  of,  how  is  it 
by  grace?  Where  is  the  instrumentality  of  faith  ? 
Why  is  it  not  of  ourselves ,  as  much  as  any  thing  nat¬ 
ural  to  us  can  be?  How  is  it  any  more  the  special  gift 
of  God,  than  our  being,  or  any  of  the  common  boun¬ 
ties  of  his  providence?  The  grace  of  God  has  respect 
only  to  the  guilty;  and  in  this  the  grace  of  the  gospel 
eminently  shines,  that  God  should  pardon  and  save  sin¬ 
ners,  not  only  without  any  respect  to  their  righteous¬ 
ness  or  good  works,  but  against  the  highest  positive 
desert  of  punishment — over  the  head  of  infinite  guilt. 

Agreeable  to  this  is  that  other  declaration  of  the 
apostle. — “  Not  for  works  of  righteousness  which  we 
have  done,  but  according  to  bis  mercy  he  savetli  us  by 
the  washing  of  regeneration,  and  the  renewing  of  the 
.Holy  Ghost.”  Mercy  has  the  same  respect  to  the 
wretched,  as  grace  has  to  the  guilty  ;  and  a  moral 
agent  cannot  be  a  wretched  creature,  unless  he  be  a 
guilty  one.  If  then  we  are  not  polluted,  what  need  of 
washing?  If  we  have  any  inherent  natural  holiness, 
what  occasion  for  renovation — what  possibility  of  it  ? 
There  could  be  no  room  for  the  idea  of  a  renewal,  un¬ 
less  the  expression  mean  an  entire  change  of  moral  af¬ 
fection  in  the  subject. 

Let  us  now  look  at  the  case  of  infants,  and  honestly 

*  ✓ 


16 


apply  these  scriptural  principles  to  them.  That  they 
are  objects  of  the  divine  compassion  and  that  of  such 
is  the  kingdom  of  God,  there  can  be  no  doubt.  But  in 
what  way  are  they  saved?  We  must  resort  to  scrip¬ 
ture  for  an  answer. 

Except  a  man  be  born  again ,  he  cannot  see  the  king - 
dom  of  God. 

Justified  freely  by  his  grace ,  through  the  redemption 
that  is  in  Jesus  Christ. 

There  is  no  other  name  given  under  heaven  among 
men  whereby  we  must  be  saved. 

There  is,  then,  but  one  and  the  same  method  of  sal¬ 
vation  for  mankind  in  all  ao-es  of  life— for  the  child  and 

x  O 

for  the  adult — for  the  infant  in  the  cradle,  and  for  the 
man  of  grey  hairs.  But  if  children,  before  they  come 
to  the  age  of  understanding  and  a  capability  of  know¬ 
ing  the  rule  of  duty,  be  incapable  of  moral  exercises, 
or  of  committing  sin,  and  they  be  taken  out  of  the 
world  in  this  state,  what  guilt,  or  desert  of  punishment 
can  belong  to  them.  They  have  committed  no  sins, 
and  a  transfer  of  the  guilt  of  Adam’s  first  sin  by  impu¬ 
tation  is  justly  and  by  all  exploded.  What  sins,  then, 
can  be  charged  to  their  account  ?  Certainly  none.  If 
.  so,  how  are  they  fallen  or  lost  creatures?  how  expos¬ 
ed  to  any  punishment  ?  They  will  not  be  punished  for 
Adam’s  sin — neither  for  sins  which  they  might  have 
committed  had  they  lived  to  adult  years  :  and  if  they 
be  judged  according  to  the  deeds  done  in  the  body — 
they  had  committed  no  sins  in  the  body; — how  then 
can  they  need  the  merits,  and  mediation  of  a  Redeem¬ 
er  ?  What  room  for  the  display  of  mercy  or  grace,  for 
they  are  neither  guilty  nor  wretched.  Salvation  im¬ 
plies  an  exemption  from  deserved  punishment — they 
could  not  therefore  be  the  subjects  of  salvation,  for 
they  are  not  deserving  of  punishment.  They  would 
be  entitled  to  happiness,  independent  of  any  atone¬ 
ment,  the  same  as  Adam,  had  he  never  sinned.  The 
justice  of  God  would  exempt  them  from  punishment. 
80  that -a  part  of  the  human  race,  and  a  considerable 
part  too,  would  be  saved  independently  of  the  atone¬ 
ment  and  mediation  of  Christ,  for  many,  if  not  most 
of  our  mortal  race,  die  in  infancy  and  childhood.  But 


17 


perhaps,  it  would  be  difficult  to  reconcile  these  ideas 
with  those  declarations  of  the  apostle — “there  is  salva¬ 
tion  in  none  other — there  is  no  other  name  given  un¬ 
der  heaven  among  men  whereby  we  must  be  saved. 

2.  To  admit  the  moral  purity  of  children  would  su¬ 
percede  the  necessity  of  regeneration,  or  indeed  the 
possibility  of  it.  The  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  for 
this  purpose  would  be  needless — for  if  we  have  natu¬ 
rally  any  love  to  God,  we  cannot  want  what  we  already 
possess.  Holiness  is  all  that  is  effected  by  regenera¬ 
tion,  and  this  we  have  by  nature.  Why  should  we 
not  in  that  casa  see  at  least  as  many  righteous  as  wick¬ 
ed  characters  among  mankind  ■?  It  is  only  for  them  to 
improve  what  they  already  possess  ;  and  a  natural  dis¬ 
position  to  holiness,  is  a  disposition  to  holy  practice. 
This  has  always  the  governing  influence  over  the  nat¬ 
ural  or  physical  powers  of  the  moral  agent. 

Should  it  now  be  objected,  that  there  is  not  a  fair 
chance  for  experiment — that  the  child  is  born  into  a 
world  already  full  of  wickedness,  and  the  influence  of 
constant  evil  examples  before  him,  gives  a  sinful  bias 
to  the  first  buddings  of  his  natural  inclinations,  and 
thence  directs  them  from  the  channels,  in  which  they 
would  otherwise  have  flown.  I  answer — what  force 
or  conforming  influence  can  evil  examples  have  upon 
a  holy  heart  ?  The  more  they  are  seen,  the  more  they 
would  be  abhorred  and  shunned. 

That  the  propensities  of  nature  will  habitually  rule 
and  govern  the  man,  we  find  is  not  merely  a  doctrine 
of  the  Bible,  but  was  an  acknowledged  sentiment 
among  the  heathen  of  remote  antiquity.  Horace  in 
one  of  his  poetical  odes  has  this  expression  upon  the 
.  subject, 


- “  si  naturam  furea  repellas 

Usque  recurret'’— - 

In  plain  English,  Jf  you  repel  nature  with  a  pitch- 
fork,  it  will  return  again.  I  cite  not  the  opinion  of  a 
heathen  as  authority  in  a  point  of  gospel  doctrine,  but 
simply  to  evince  what  is  the  dictate  of  unprejudiced 
reason,  and  of  human  experience,  on  this  truth,  that 
neither  force  nor  art,  can  change  the  natural  disposi¬ 
tion  of  the  human  mind. 


2* 


18 


But  to  return  to  the  point;  I  would  ask,  how  came 
the  world  to  be  already  full  of  wickedness  ?  We  equal¬ 
ly  want  a  cause  for  this  cause:  Supposing  the  great¬ 
er  part  of  the  present  generation  to  be  wicked,  in  con¬ 
sequence  of  the  evil  examples  of  the  preceding  gen¬ 
eration — whence  did  they  become  wicked  ?  Continue 
to  pursue  this  inquiry  further  and  further  back,  and 
see  if  it  do  not  necessarily  lead  to  the  natural  inher¬ 
ent  wickednass  of  the  human  heart  ? 

Our  Saviour  told  the  Jews  expressly,  “  I  know  ye, 
that  ye  have  not  the  love  of  God  in  you  and  he  de¬ 
clared  to  Nicodemus,  “  Except  a  man*  be  born  again, 
he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God.”  Now  as  long  as 
this  holds  true  of  mankind,  it  will  be  true  that  they 
are  destitute  of  holiness — for  holiness  is  the  only  qual¬ 
ification  requisite  for  admission  into  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.  It  thence  also  follows,  that  Regeneration  is 
an  entire  change  of  the  native  moral  disposition,  im¬ 
mediately,  instantaneously  and  irresistably  effected  by 
the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit ; — is  the  bestowment 
of  something  of  which  nothing  of  the  kind  was  in  the 
soul  before  ; — and  all  these  circumstances  necessarily 
presuppose  a  native  total  depravity  in  the  subject. 
Yours  with  much  respect, 

Aristarchus. 


* 


LETTER  II. 


Dear  Sir, 

In  continuance  of  the  subject  of  my  former  letter, 
I  now  propose  to  adduce  a  number  of  scripture  passa¬ 
ges  in  support  of  the  doctrine  of  human  depravity  ; 
and  we  will  begin  with  that  in  Genesis  v.  3.  And  Ad¬ 
am  lived  an  hundred  and  thirty  years  and  begat  a  son 
in  his  own  likeness  after  his  image. 

It  is  very  observable  from  the  form  of  the  expres¬ 
sion  that  it  is  contrasted  with  that  in  Genesis  i.  26. 
“And  God  said  let  ns  make  man  in  our  image  after 
our  likeness ; — and  therefore  is  equally  expressive  of 
moral  character.  It  was  Adam’s  image  and  likeness 
and  not  God’s.  If  Adam  became  a  sinner  by  his  first 
transgression,  and  lost  the  moral  image  of  God,  such 
was  the  moral  character  of  Adam’s  son  by  natural  re¬ 
generation.  It  was  not  what  he  first  acquired  by  the 
influence  of  evil  example,  and  the  habit  of  evil  exer¬ 
cises,  after  he  had  arrived  to  the  age  of  knowledge  and 
understanding,  but  what  he  possessed  and  therefore 
exercised  from  his  very  birth.  Adam  begat  him  in  his 
own  likeness  after  his  image. 

Genesis  vi.  5.  But  God  saw  the  wickedness  of  man 
was  great  in  the  earth,  and  that  every  imagination  of 
the  thought  of  his  heart  ivas  only  evil,  continually. 

The  doctrine  cannot  be  more  clearly,  fully,  or  forci¬ 
bly  expressed.  It  is  not  in  language,  more  perfectly 
to  define  it.  Yourt,will  observe,  that  the  predicate  is 
not  restricted  to  a  particular  class  of  offenders,  who  by 
long  and  inveterate  habits  of  wickedness  had  extin¬ 
guished  their  inherent,  natural  principles  of  goodness, 
and  become  more  vicious  and  hardened  than  the  rest 
of  their  species; — but  it  is  applied  in  the  universal 
sense,  as  extensively  as  the  word  man  can  reach. 
This,  as  a  generic  term  includes  all  of  every  moral 
description. 


20 


But  should  it  be  suggested  that  though  this  wicked¬ 
ness  was  great  in  degree  and  universal  in  extent,  yet  it 
did  not  exclude  those  natural  principles  of  virtue,  which 
exist  in  all,  from  operating  in  some  degree,  although 
the  opposite  principles  prevailed  and  were  greatly  pre¬ 
dominant  ; — the  objector  is  at  once  met  upon  his  own 
ground  and  the  contrary  affirmed  ; — “  every  imagina¬ 
tion  of  the  thoughts  of  his  heart  was  only  evil.”  And 
again  ;  lest  this  should  not  be  sufficiently  full  and  de¬ 
cisive — lest  some  self  righteous  theorist  should  still 
plead,  that,  though  the  principles  of  vice  might  at  cer¬ 
tain  periods,  so  far  prevail  in  men,  as  wholly  to  ex¬ 
clude  all  virtuous  exercises,  yet  this  was  but  at  inter¬ 
vals  ; — the  natural  goodness  of  the  heart  would  awake 
and  brighten  at  the  first  call  of  conscience,  and  again 
direct  the  conduct  of  the  man  ; — lest,  I  say,  any  should 
resort  to  this  subterfuge,  the  last  word  of  the  sentence, 
cuts  up  the  whole  dispute,  root  and  branch — “  every 
imagination  of  the  thoughts  of  his  heart,  was  only 
evil,  continually .”  Can  words  more  definitely  express 
the  entire  extinction  of  moral  virtue  ? 

Psalms  x iv.  2,  3. — “The  Lord  looked  down  from 
heaven  upon  the  children  of  men  to  see  if  there  were 
any  that  did  understand  and  seek  after  God.  They 
are  altogether  become  filthy.  They  are  all  gone  aside. 
There  is  none  that  doth  good,  no  not  one.” 

These  words  need  no  comment.  They  are  quoted 
by  Paul,  in  his  epistle  to  the  Romans,  to  this  same 
point. 

Job  xiv.  4,  and  xxv.  5.  “  Who  can  bring  a  clean 

thing  out  of  an  unclean  ?  Not  one.  How  can  he  be 
clean  that  is  born  of  a  woman  ?”  The  words  clean ,  and 
unclean,  in  this  passage,  can  respect  nothing  but  mor¬ 
al  purity,  and  moral  pollution  ;  and  is  a  declaration 
that  no  man  is,  born  pure,  or  free  Trom  sin.  The  na¬ 
tive  moral  purity  of  children,  therefore,  cannot  be  sup¬ 
ported  by  Scripture. 

Psalms  li.  5.  “  Behold  I  was  shapen  in  iniquity, 

and  in  sin  did  my  mother  conceive  me.” 

This  is  a  most  penitential  Psalm.  David  penned  it 
in  the  deepest  humiliation  before  God,  for  his  wicked¬ 
ness  in  the  case  of  Uriah.  He  makes  the  most  perti- 


21 


nent  acknowledgements  of  bis  sin.  He  is  not  confes¬ 
sing  his  father’s  or  his  mother’s  sins,  but  his  own.  He 
says,  in  the  verse,  next  blit  one  preceding,  “  Fori  ac¬ 
knowledge  my  wickedness  and  my  sin  is  ever  before 
me.”  And  he  does  not  alledge,  that,  I  did  not  com¬ 
mence  moral  agency,  till  I  arrived  to  the  years  of  un¬ 
derstanding — but  “  I  was  shapen  in  iniquity,  and  in 
sin  did  my  mother  conceive  me.”  I  began  to  be  a  sin¬ 
ner  as  soon  as  I  began  to  exist — or  as  soon  as  1  had  any 
exercises  at  all  ;  and  my  whole  after  life  has  been  a 
continued  course  of  sin. 

Psalms  lviii.  3.  “  The  wicked  are  estranged  from 

the  womb — they  go  astray  as  soon  as  they  be  born , 
speaking  lies.” 

This  is  in  perfect  unison  with  the  forecited  passage 
declaring  the  same  thing  with  still  greater  explicitness. 
If  then,  being  estranged  from  God, — going  astray  and 
speaking  lies,  be  consistent  with  the  moral  purity  of 
children,  let  this  passage  be  brought  to  prove,  that  they 
are  incapable  of  moral  exercises,  until  they  are  of  an 
age  to  read  and  understand  the  ten  commandments. 
To  say  here,  as  some  do,  that  the  passage  is  figurative, 
and  not  to  be  literally  understood— -but  that  the  child 
will  be  a  sinner  if  he  lives  to  be  a  moral  agent,  and 
that  his  first  moral  exercises  will  be  evil — is  an  unrea¬ 
sonable  evasion  perverting  the  true  sense  of  the  pas¬ 
sage  : — and  the  argument  to  support  their  theory,  from 
the  expression,  speaking' lies — because  young  children 
have  not  the  faculty  of  speech,  is  a  mere  quibble. 
Mankind  can  speak  lies  without  the  use  of  words — 
and  they  thus  do  in  every  sinful  exercise  of  the  heart. 
Every  sin  is  a  practical  falsehood — it  denies  the  rela¬ 
tion  and  fitness  of  things — the  authority  of  God  and  the 
justice  of  his  law. —  Among  other  traits  of  moral  char¬ 
acter  by  which  the  Psalmist  describes  the  righteous 
man,  one,  is,  that,  “  he  speaketh  the  truth  in  his 
heart ” — Psalms  xv.  2,  because  his  moral  disposition, 
and  moral  a  flections  are  in  accordance  with  the  truth  : 
but  the  sinner’s  character  is  a  contrast — He  speaks 
falsehood  in  his  heart — because  it  is  enmity  against 
God,  and  is  not  subject  to  his  law. — Children,  there- 


22 

fore,  are  not  incapable  of  “  going  astray,”  and  of 
“speaking  lies,”  as  soon  as  they  are  born. 

Romans  viii.7. — “The  carnal  mind  is  enmity  against 
God — for  it  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God,  neither 
indeed  can  be.” 

The  carnal  mind  is  the  same  as  the  fleshly  mind  : 
and  our  Saviour  tells  us,  “  that  which  is  born  of  the 
flesh  is  flesh — that  is,  by  natural  birth,  every  man  is 
possessed  of  a  carnal  mind  ;  and  this  Paul  does  not 
say  is  in  a  certain  degree  inimical,  towards  the  divine 
character,  but  he  puts  it  in  the  very  abstract — the  car¬ 
nal  mind  is  enmity  against  God. 

Matthew  xii.  33  and  Luke  vi.  43,  44. — “  Either  make 
the  tree  good,  and  his  fruit  good  ;  or  else  make  the 
tree  corrupt  and  its  fruit  corrupt,  for  the  tree  is  known 
by  its  fruit.  For,  a  good  tree  bringeth  not  forth  cor¬ 
rupt  fruit,  neither  doth  a  corrupt  tree  bring  forth  good 
fruit — for  of  thorns  men  do  not  gather  figs,  nor  of  a 
bramblebush  gather  they  grapes. 

By  this  similitude  the  Saviour  represents  the  char¬ 
acter  and  state  of  mankind  ;  and  he  evidently  goes  up¬ 
on  this  ground,  that  mankind  are  universally  corrupt, 
or  there  could  be  no  occasion,  or  propriety  in  making 
the  tree  good.  And  that  this  is  natural,  the  parable 
teaches,  or  it  would  be  improperly  applied,  and  lead  us 
into  an  important  error.  Can  any  thing  be  more  nat¬ 
ural,  to  a  tree  than  its  own  proper  fruit,  which  it  bears  ? 
Just  as  natural  is  the  corrupt  fruit  of  sin  to  the  carnal 
heart ;  and,  the  same  tree  while  possessing  the  same 
nature,  will  universally  produce  the  same  kind  of  fruit. 
It  is  impossible  without  an  alteration  of  its  nature, 
that  it  should  produce,  from  its  natural  boughs,  fruit  of 
a  different  kind.  And  it  is  equally  morally  impossible, 
that  mankind  in  their  natural  state,  should  bring  forth 
any  other  than  evil  fruit,  or  have  any  other  than  evil 
exercises. 

May  we  not,  hence  infer  that  were  mankind  as  or¬ 
thodox  in  religion  as  they  are  in  the  science  of  hus¬ 
bandry  and  horticulture,  there  would  be  but  one  senti¬ 
ment  upon  this  subject?  We  may,  at  least,  gather  this 
from  it,  that  sin  being  natural  to  us,  as  the  fruit  is  to 
the  tree,  does  not  make  us  the  less  sinful  but,  on 


the  contrary,  the  more  natural  it  is  to  us,  the  more 
wicked  and  abominable  we  are.  It  is  the  taste  of  the 
fruit  which  determines  its  quality,  and  marks  the  char¬ 
acter  of  the  tree  that  produced  it — and  nothing  extrin¬ 
sic.  to  it,  as  whether  it  grows  in  the  sunshine,  or  in  the 
shade — in  a  rich  or  barren  soil — with  much  manuring, 
or  none.  So  it  is  with  the  affections  and  exercises  of 
mankind.  If  man  be,  naturally  an  evil  tree,  the  moral 
quality  of  his  exercises  does  not  depend  upon  external 
circumstances,  but  upon  their  own  proper  intrinsic  na¬ 
ture.  The  knowledge  or  ignorance  of  the  man  does 
not  effect  the  being,  but  only  the  degree  of  his  guilt. 
The  apostle  indeed  says  that  “  where  there  is  no  law, 
there  is  no  transgression” — but  we  do  not  hear  him 
say,  that  where  there  is  no  knowledge  of  the  law,  there 
is  no  transgression.  He  says  too,  that,  “  by  the  law 
is  the  knowledge  of  sin  ;  but  nowhere,  that  by  the 
knowledge  of  the  law,  is  the  being  of  sin.  The  Sav¬ 
iour  tells  us  that  the  ignorant  servant  who  commits 
sin,  shall  be  beaten  with  few  stripes  (not  acquitted  with 
impunity)  while  the  servant  who  knew  his  duty  and 
did  it  not,  is  worthy  to  be  beaten  with  many  stripes. 
This  makes  it  evident  that  light  and  knowledge  affect 
not  the  being  but  only  the  degree  of  guilt.  There  is 
in  nature  such  things  as  right  and  wrong,  virtue  and 
vice  independent  of  any  revealed  law.  Neither  is  it 
the  law,  but  their  respective  qualities,  which  consti¬ 
tutes  their  moral  nature.  Had  there  been  no  law  re¬ 
vealed  to  men,  yet  sin  and  holiness  would  as  really 
have  been  what  they  now  are.  Sin  would  still  be  sin, 
and  a  transgression  of  the  law — for  the  law  of  God  has 
had  an  eternal  existence  in  the  divine  nature.  “  The 
law  entered  that  the  offence  might  abound.”  All  we 
can  say,  therefore,  is,  that  the  guilt  of  sin  is  greatly  in¬ 
creased  ;  and  its  evil  clearly  discovered  by  the  knowl¬ 
edge  of  the  law.  This  is  expressly  taught  us — “  that 
sin,  by  the  commandment  might  become  exceeding 
sinful.”  From  this  view  of  the  subject  we  may  rea¬ 
sonably  conclude,  that  children  are  moral  agents,  and 
capable  of  committing  sin,  as  well  before,  as  after  they 
have  the  knowledge  of  the  law. 

Some,  perhaps,  will  here  say  that  the  criminality  of 


24 


him  who  sins  ignorantly,  consists  principally  if  not 
wholly,  in  his  wilfully  neglecting  to  improve  the  means 
of  knowledge  in  his  power.  They  who  sin  ignorantly 
under  the  light  of  the  gospel,  refuse  to  receive  the 
knowledge  of  God’s  word.  The  ignorant  heathen, 
destitute  of  Revelation,  have  reason  to  guide,  and  the 
light  of  nature  to  instruct  them — but  this  they  pervert  ; 
and  become  vain  in  their  imagination,  and  their  fool¬ 
ish  hearts  are  darkened,  because  they  like  not  to  re¬ 
tain  God  in  their  knowledge.  But  I  ask  whether,  in 
both  cases,  this,  is  not,  in  reality,  the  same  as  sinning 
against  light ;  and  whether  it  does  not  involve,  (being 
sins  of  wilful  and  not  necessary  ignorance,)  an  equal 
degree  of  criminality  with  him  who  sins  in  opposition 
to  the  light  and  conviction  of  known  duty?  A  wilful 
rejection  of  the  means,  of  knowledge,  discovers,  per¬ 
haps,  as  much  perverseness,  and  it  surely  is  the  same 
in  kind,  with  that  of  counteracting  knowledge  itself. 
And  how  can  it  be  true,  in  such  a  case,  that  the  one  is 
deserving  of  few  stripes,  and  the  other  of  many  ?  Shall 
we  not  then  be  again  driven  to  the  same  conclusion, 
that,  it  is  not  our  having  or  not  having  the  knowledge 
of  du  ty,  or  even  the  means  of  that  knowledge,  which 
constitutes  the  essence  of  our  guilt — but  only  the  de¬ 
gree  of  it.  If  this  be  true, .it  may  be  difficult  to  show, 
why  young  children  may  not  be  moral  agents,  as  well 
before,  as  after  they  have  attained  to  the  knowledge  of 
good  and  evil.  Their  having  less  guilt  than  adults, 
does  not  prove  their  innocence. 

Permit  me  now,  to  suggest  another  argument,  equal¬ 
ly  the  dictate  of  reason  and  scripture,  and  founded  up¬ 
on  the  character  and  perfections  of  God.  It  is  this. 
Innocent  beings,  among  rational  creatures,  cannot  be 
the  subjects  of  suffering.  This  is  ever  the  fruit  of  sin. 
Natural  evil  is  the  consequence  only  of  moral  evil.  It 
is  an  unequivocal  expression  of  the  divine  anger,  and  a 
certain  token  of  personal  guilt;  and  even  the  suffering 
of  brutes  is  a  consequence  of  human  apostacy  ; — “  the 
creature  was”  hence  “  made  subject  to  vanity,  not  wil¬ 
lingly  but  by  reason  of  him  who  hath  subjected  the 
same  in  hope  ; — for  we  know  that  the  whole  creation 
groaneth,  and  travaileth  in  pain  together  until  now.” — 


25 


But,  “whoever  perished  being  innocent,  or  when 
were  the  righteous  cut  off?”  In  the  sufferings  of  moral 
innocence,  the  holy  Saviour  is  the  only  example — the 
only  existing  exception  to  this  rule  ;  but  it  tends  to  es¬ 
tablish  and  not  to  overthrow  it.  He  indeed  suffered 
without  sin — but  he  suffered  for  sin,  the  just  for  the 
unjust.  He  suffered  voluntarily,  and  with  his  own 
free  consent.  It  would  otherwise  have  been  inconsist¬ 
ent  with  the  justice  and  righteousness  of  God,  as  the 
moral  governor  of  the  world,  to  inflict  evil  upon 
Christ,  or  any  other  innocent  rational  creature. 

Here  we  are  estopped  from  alledging,  that  God  as  a 
Sovereign  proprietor  of  all  things,  hath  a  right  to  do 
as  he  will  with  his  creatures  and  if  he  see  it  necessary 
for  the  accomplishment  of  hi3  wise  and  holy  purposes, 
to  bring  evils  upon  the  innocent  and  unoffending. — The 
merit  of  this  argument  it  is  unnecessary  to  bring  into 
discussion,  for  it  has  no  force  or  application.  God 
himself  hath  settled  and  determined  this  point — that 
justice  and  judgment  are  the  habitation  of  his  throne. 
The  rules  of  his  moral  government  he  hath  establish¬ 
ed,  and  revealed  them  in  his  word — that  natural  evils 
are  penal — and  no  arbitrary,  or  unmerited  sufferings 
are  inflicted.  This  principle  is  definitively  stated  in 
Ezekiel  xviii. — “  What  mean  ye,  that  ye  use  this  prov¬ 
erb  concerning  the  land  of  Israel,  saying  the  fathers 
have  eaten  sour  grapes,  and  the  children’s  teeth  are 
set  on  edge  ?  As  I  live,  saith  the  Lord  God,  ye  shall 
not  have  occasion  any  more  to  use  this  proverb  in  Is¬ 
rael.  Behold  all  souls  are  mine — as  the  soul  of  the 
father,  so  also  the  soul  of  the  son  is  mine — the  soul 
that  sinneth,  it  shall  die. — The  son  shall  not  bear  the 
iniquity  of  the  father,  neither  shall  the  father  bear  the 
iniquity  of  the  son — the  righteousness  of  the  righteous 
shall  be  upon  him,  and  the  wickedness  of  the  wicked 
shall  be  upon  him.” — And  again  in  lamentations  iii. 
39.  “  Wherefore  doth  a  living  man  complain — a  man 

for  the  ■punishment  of  his  sins  ?” — These  are  no  less 
than  express  declarations,  that  those  natural  evils 
which  God  inflicts  upon  mankind  are  penal  evils — the 
fruits  of  his  displeasure,  and  tokens  of  his  disapproba¬ 
tion  of  the  personal  moral  character  of  the  sufferer. 

3 


26 


And  this  is  perfectly  consonant  to  reason,  and  every 
correct  notion  of  the  holy  character,  and  tender  mercy 
of  God. — A  good  father  will  not  correct,  or  be  displeas¬ 
ed  with,  an  innocent,  unoffending  child — who  never 
disobeyed  his  commands. 

Now  let  us  again  look  to  the  case  of  infants,  and  ap¬ 
ply  these  well  established  truths  to  them,  in  consist¬ 
ence,  if  we  can,  with  the  principle  of  their  moral  puri¬ 
ty.  Are  they  not  sufferers?  Yea  often  in  the  earliest 
stages  of  infancy,  subject  to  very  great  and  distress¬ 
ing  sufferings  ; — to  pains — sickness — convulsions  and 
death  itself?  Now  what  shall  we  say  to  this — what  con¬ 
clusion  form  from  this  moral  phenomenon?  Are  God’s 
works  of  providence  destitute  of  meaning,  and  per¬ 
formed  without  any  reason  or  cause.  Or,  are  they  op¬ 
posed  in  their  instruction  to  the  express  declarations, 
and  fundamental  principles  of  his  word?  By  the  ex¬ 
press  language  of  his  Providence,  he  declares  chil¬ 
dren,  yea  even  infants  to  be  sinful  creatures — he  treats 
them  as  such  and  his  judgments  are  according  to  truth 
— his  providence  a  practical  comment  upon  his  word — 
and  shall  we  dare  to  reply  against  God,  and  contra¬ 
dict  his  solemn  and  pointed  declaration  by  asserting 
that  children  are  not  sinners,  or  even  moral  agents  ? 
Shall  we  yield  to  the  feelings  and  doubts  of  unbelief, 
and  say,  “  look  at  that  little  creature,  just  stepped  into 
being' — wliat  are  his  thoughts  ?  Can  he  be  a  sinner — a 
moral  agent ,  while  ignorant  as  he  is,  of  every  moral 
object  ?  Let  God  determine  this  point,  and  divine  prov¬ 
idence  silence  human  philosophy.  And  by  his  author¬ 
ity  it  is  determined — that  man  is  born  a  sinner — by  na¬ 
ture  a  child  of  wrath,  and  comes  into  the  world  unho¬ 
ly  and  unclean. — This  is  the  testimony  of  God  both  in 
his  word  and  providence.  And  were  we  candid  obser¬ 
vers  of  children,  and  not  blinded  by  pride,  or  the  over¬ 
weaning  fondness  of  natural  affection,  we  might,  in  a 
very  early  stage,  and  long  before  they  are  allowed  by 
some  to  possess  any  moral  character,  discern  as  evi¬ 
dent  tokens  of  depravity,  as  after  they  have  attained 
to  adult  age.  They  have  affections  and  passions,  and 
they  express  them  by  the  language  of  action,  though 
they  have  no  words  to  do  it.  Look  at  the  young  babe 


27 


puling  in  its  nurse’s  arms — and  say  if  it  gives  not  evi¬ 
dences  of  its  fallen  character — of  a  depraved  and  unholy 
state  ?  and  these  as  far  as  its  infantile  circumstances 
give  scope  and  opportunity  for  the  indulgence  of  sin¬ 
ful  passions.  What  selfishness  does  it  often  discover — 
what  petulence,  peevishness,  boisterous  impatience  of 
restraint — what  refractory  feelings,  anger,  restiveness 
and  even  resentment,  clearly  indicating  that  all  the 
seeds  of  depravity  are  there,  and  in  their  native  soil, 
and  beginning  to  germinate. 

I  will  here  barely  notice,  and  that  because  it  has 
been  suggested,  and  even  offered  to  the  religious  pub¬ 
lic,  in  the  form  and  shape  of  an  argument  to  invali¬ 
date  the  evidence  of  moral  character  in  infants  arising 
from  the  natural  evils  to  which  they  are  subject  ;  that 
the  young  of  animals  also  suffer,  and  therefore,  there 
is  as  little  moral  evidence  in  the  one  case,  as  the  oth¬ 
er.  This  is  indeed  too  sickening  and  revolting  for 
contemplation.  To  rank  the  children  of  men,  possess¬ 
ing  rational  and  immortal  souls,  for  whom  the  glorious 
Saviour  suffered  and  died — who  bear  the  seals,  and  are 
entitled  to  the  blessings  of  the  everlasting  covenant — 
who  are  the  capable  subjects  of  divine  grace,  and  of 
the  eternal  salvation  of  God  in  heaven  : — to  rank  then 
I  say  with  the  brutes  that  perish — is  an  insult  to  rea¬ 
son  and  Scripture — an  outrage  upon  humanity;  and 
too  absurd  and  degrading  to  merit  a  serious  reply. 

To  establish  this  point,  I  shall  trouble  you  with  on¬ 
ly  one  passage  of  scripture  further.  Ephesians  ii.  1. 
44  And  you  hath  he  quickened,  who  were  dead  in  tres¬ 
passes  and  sins.” 

If  the  parts  of  this  sentence  be  contrasted,  and  the 
quickening  or  restoring  to  spiritual  life,  ascribed  to 
the  mighty  power  of  God,  be  considered  as  the  effect 
of  a  supernatural  divine  agency  put  forth,  in  and  upon 
the  creature,  communicating  divine  life,  and  begetting 
holy  exercises  in  the  soul — we  must  take  considerable 
pains  to  misunderstand  the  apostle’s  description  of  the 
state  of  mankind  previous  to  this  change — or  make  the 
words,  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins ,  speak  any  thing 
less  than  an  intire  destitution  of  moral  goodness — or 
in  other  words — total  depravity. 


28 


The  words,  trespasses  and  sins,  express  the  kind, 
and  dead  the  degree  of  depravity.  Now  if  we  mean, 
when  we  say,  a  man  is  dead,  that  he  is  only  half  dead, 
then  we  may  apply  this  rule  of  construction  to  the 
words  before  us.  Or  did  the  apostle  mean  that  they 
would  have  died,  had  not  divine  grace  interposed,  so 
far  had  they  already  declined  in  the  progress  of  lan- 
guishment  ?  But  the  word  is  used  in  an  absolute  and 
unqualified  sense,  and  in  the  past  time,  as  what  had 
already  taken  place— “  who  were  dead.” 

Neither  can  it  be  the  apostle’s  primary  meaning 
that  they  were  dead  in  the  eye  of  the  law,  as  being  un¬ 
der  the  sentence  of  death,  and  liable  to  suffer  the  exe¬ 
cution  of  it— as  we  say  of  a  malefactor  condemned  to 
execution,  that  he  is  dead  in  law  from  the  time  that 
sentence  is  passed  upon  him.  This  is  evident,  at  first 
view.  It  is  plain  that  he  looked  further  back,  and  to 
something  distinct  from  their  condemnation,  and  makes 
this  death  to  consist,  in  that,  for  which  they  were  con¬ 
demned,  and  not  in  their  condemnation  itself,  or  any 
of  its  consequences — placing  it,  not  in  a  state  of  suffer¬ 
ing.  but  of  action — not  in  judicial  decision,  but  person* 
al  moral  character — “  who  were  dead  in  trespasses 
and  sins” 

Furthermore.  How  would  any  other  sense  agree 
with  the  quickening  mentioned  ?  The  two  parts  of  the 
sentence  are  contrasted,  and  the  two  different  states  of 
nature  and  grace  held  up  in  opposite  points  of  light : — - 
and  it  is  sanctification ,  not  justification  which  marks 
the  change  and  is  the  effect  of  the  divine  agency.  It 
is  not  you  hath  he  acquitted  who  were  condemned  to 
death — but  you  hath  he  quickened  who  were  in  fact 
dead,  and  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins.  And  it  is  easy 
to  see  that  sanctification  or  spiritual  life  stands  oppos¬ 
ed  to  moral  depravity  or  spiritual  death. 

If  now,  it  should  be  suggested,  that  this  total  moral 
depravity,  signified  by  the  expression  44  dead  in  tres¬ 
passes  and  sins,”  was  not  their  natural  character,  but 
the  effect  of  long  continued  habits  of  wickedness — let 
us  read  on  to  the  end  of  the  third  verse,  which  is 
a  continued  description  of  their  moral  character,  and 
closes  with  these  emphatical  words,  “And  were  by  net- 


29 


ture  children  of  wrath  even  as  others.”  If,  then,  by 
nature  they  were  children  of  wrath*  they  were  by  na¬ 
ture  guilty  creatures,  and  not  by  nature  possessed  of 
moral  purity. 

Yours  with  much  respect, 

Aristarchus. 


LETTER  III. 


Dear  Sir, 

The  grand  point  in  Christianity,  viz.  what  is  our 
natural  character,  or  what  the  moral  state  in  which  we 
come  into  the  world,  I  now  consider  as  determined  ; 
and  the  doctrine  of  native  moral  purity,  fully  disprov¬ 
ed  by  scripture  authority. 

With  the  doctrine  of  total  depravity,  those  of  eter¬ 
nal  election,  and  special  efficacious  grace  are  insepara¬ 
bly  connected  ;  and,  accordingly  we  find  them  form¬ 
ing  essential  parts  in  the  system  of  revealed  religion. 

If  once  admitted  that  a  part  of  the  human  race  will 
be  saved  (and  without  this  the  gospel  is  a  nullity)  on 
whom  does  the  determination  of  this  important  point 
rest — who  and  how  many  shall  he  saved  ?  It  must  be 
determined  by  some  being  or  power.  A  point  so  in¬ 
teresting  to  the  general  happiness  of  the  intelligent 
system,  we  cannot  with  any  reason  suppose  is  left  to 
the  decision  of  chance,  as  an  uncertain  and  contingent 
event.  Who  then  is  adequate  to  the  task,  but  He 
who  is  infinite  in  wisdom  and  goodness  ?  Would  any 
creature,  or  number  of  creatures,  or  the  whole  uni¬ 
verse  of  creatures,  be  equal  to  it  ?  If  they  were,  who 
should  vest  them  with  authority  to  do  it.  Their  whole 

3* 


30 


wisdom  and  goodness  collected  is  not  infinite.  Is  it 
not  therefore  necessary  and  best  that  God  should  de¬ 
termine  this  important  concern  ?  Is  it  not  suitable  and 
right  that  he  should  choose  the  members  of  his  own 
family?  We  worms  claim  and  exercise  this  privilege  ; 
and  shall  we  presume  to  deny  this  right  to  God  ?  Shall 
not  the  great  and  glorious  governour  of  all  worlds,  pos¬ 
sess  equal  power  and  authority,  with  an  earthly  poten¬ 
tate — the  right  of  awarding  pardon  or  punishment  to 
rebels  according  to  his  own  discretion  ? 

To  the  candid  inquirer  it  is  plain  and  certain,  that 
moral  necessity  and  natural  liberty  are  perfectly  con¬ 
sistent.  That  there  is  a  moral  and  inevitable  necessi¬ 
ty  or  certainty,  that  every  event,  should  take  place,  in 
the  exact  time,  manner  and  circumstance  that  it  does, 
is  manifest — being  a  necessary  consequence  of  the  di¬ 
vine  foreknowledge.  This  may  be  argued  from  the 
truth  of  prophecies. — Suppose  a  certain  event  to  be 
foretold  by  inspiration  (as  many  have  been  and  that 
for  hundreds  of  years  before  they  take  place)  then 
God  who  inspired  the  prophet,  knew  with  infinite  cer¬ 
tainty  the  futurition  of  the  event,  and  it  was  morally 
impossible  that  it  should  not  take  place. 

It  was  given  as  a  sure  mark  of  false  gods,  that  they 
could  not  foretell  future  events  ;  because  the  true  God 
only  is  omniscient; — and  no  one  can  give  the  reason, 
or  assign  the  mode  of  the  divine  prescience,  in  any 
other  way,  than  by  God’s  will  or  purpose — or  he  fore¬ 
knows  because  he  has  determined  what  shall  take  place. 
Things  that  depend  on  God  (and  what  things  do  not  ?) 
can  be  effected  only  by  the  divine  will.  He  wills  and 
it  is  done.  He  speaks  and  it  stands  fast.  What  other 
idea  can  we  form  of  creation,  but  as  an  act  of  the  di¬ 
vine  will?  And  God’s  work  is  perfect. — “  Known  unto 
God  are  all  his  works  from  the  beginning.  He  work- 
eth  all  things  after  the  counsel  of  his  own  will.  He 
giveth  account  of  none  of  his  matters.” 

Can  any  one  imagine  that  when  God  had  created 
the  world,  and  made  man  a  free  agent,  he  looked  on 
the  conduct,  state  and  circumstances  of  the  future  race, 
and  all  the  events  of  time,  with  their  final  results,  as 
a  dark,  confused  chaos — a  scene  of  perfect  uncertain- 


31 


ty  ?  But  the  event  is  as  certainly  fixed  by  prescience, 
as  by  decree.  Absolute  foreknowledge  excludes  all 
contingency.  And  now  will  3*011  say  that  men  are  forc¬ 
ed,  by  the  certainty  of  the  event,  and  embrace  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  fatalism  ?  Who  feels  any  force  or  constraint 
upon  his  will  ?  No  one  can  pretend  it  in  any  action 
whatever.  The  murderers  of  our  Lord,  freely  acted 
the  malice  of  their  own  evil  minds,  and  yet  in  the  same 
thing  fulfil] ed  the  eternal  purpose  of  God.  “  Him  be¬ 
ing  delivered  by  the  determinate  counsel,  and  fore¬ 
knowledge  of  God,  ye  have  taken  and  with  wicked 
hands  have  crucified  and  slain.”  Acts  ii.  21. 

Paul’s  shipwreck  is  another  instance,  in  which  we 
clearly  see  that  the  means  as  well  as  the  end  are  or¬ 
dained,  and  that  the  same  end  could  not  be  effected  by 
any  other  means; — for  after  he  was  divinely  assured, 
that  the  whole  ship’s  crew  should  be  saved,  he  tells 
them,  “  except  these  abide  in  the  ship  ye  cannot  be 
saved.”  Acts  xxvii.  31. 

And  so  it  has  ever  been  in  men’s  doing  what  was 
eternally  foreordained.  All  has  come  to  pass  and  will 
yet  come  to  pass,  and  still  men  act  their  own  will  and 
choice,  with  as  much  freedom  as  though  they  were  the 
only  beings  in  the  universe;  or  there  were  no  superi¬ 
or  power  to  influence  or  control  them.  Here  is  no 
inconsistency — no  room  for  controversy.  The  point 
is  settled,  and  by  the  highest  authority.  There  is  no 
such  moral  necessity  as  injures  the  freedom  of  the  will 
— or  compels  men  to  act  as  they  do. 

Can  we  subscribe  to  the  sentiment  that  God  acts 
without  design  ;  or  that  he  does  not  perfectly  under¬ 
stand  Lis  own  plan.  When  he  devised  a  plan  to  re¬ 
deem  and  save  mankind,  was  the  event  doubtful  in  his 
view  ?  was  it  uncertain  with  him,  whether  ail}*  would 
accept  of  Christ  and  obey  the  gospel  call  ?  If  the  crea¬ 
ture  be  wholly  dependent  on  God  for  his  being — he 
must  be  also  for  his  powers,  and  exercises.  All  his 
springs  are  in  God.  If  so,  the  purpose  of  God  from 
eternity,  must  be  the  great  and  only  first  cause  of  his 
being  effectual]}'  called  in  time.  “  Whom  ho*  did  pre¬ 
destinate  them  he  also  called.”  Horn.  viii.  30.  God 
knoweth,  who  are  his.  This  is  called  the  foundation. 


32 


“The  foundation  of  God  standeth  sure,  having  this, 
seal,  the  Lord  knoweth  them  that  are  his.”  2  Tim.  ii. 
19.  The  sinners  being  brought  out  of  darkness  into 
marvellous  light,  is  an  event  depending  on  the  power 
and  grace  of  God.  And  can  we  believe  that  God  does 
any  thing  in  time,  that  was  not  eternally  in  his  mind 
and  purpose?  Has  he  any  new  ideas,  or  designs? 
Christ  speaks  of  a  number  that  were  given  to  him  ;  of 
whom  none  should  be  lost; — and  in  his  prayer  to  the 
Father  for  the  elect,  he  says,  “  I  pray  for  them — I 
pray  not  for  the  world,  but  for  them  which  thou  hast 
given  me.”  John  xvii.  9.  It  is  true,  all  are  called 
and  bidden  welcome  ;  and  nothing  but  their  own  un¬ 
willingness  prevents  their  coming — but  it  is  peculiar 
to  the  saints,  to  be  chosen  and  effectually  called  of 
God.  “  Many  are  called,  but  few  are  chosen.”  Matt. 
xxii.  14  And  the  apostle  addresses  the  Corinthian 
brethren,  thus — “  To  the  church  of  God,  which  is  at 
Corinth,  to  them  that  are  sanctified  in  Christ  Jesus 
called  to  be  saints.  1  Cor.  i.  2. — These  passages  must 
evince,  that,  though  the  external  call  of  the  gospel  is  to 
all,  yet  there  is  an  internal,  special  and  efficacious  call, 
with  respect  to  the  saints,  by  which  they  are  sanctifi¬ 
ed,  and  distinguished  from  the  rest  of  mankind. 

Only  consider  the  case  of  one  truly  taught  of  God, 
and  effectually  called,  and  pursue  this  enquiry  with  at¬ 
tention  and  candour — ivho  made  him  to  differ  from  oth¬ 
ers  ?  His  character  and  moral  disposition  were  by  na¬ 
ture  the  same  as  theirs — yet  singular  and  distinguish¬ 
ing  grace  is  discovered  towards  him.  He  is  sanctifi¬ 
ed  and  born  of  God,  while  others  are  going  on  in  im¬ 
penitence  and  unbelief.  He  is  taken,  while  they  are 
left.  Is  it  owing  to  his  own  exertions  ?  In  what  way 
did  he  exert  himself  for  holiness,  while  he  had  not  the 
least  desire  after  it,  but  was  obstinately  opposed  to  it 
in  the  natural  temper  of  his  heart  ?  Or  how  did  he 
strive  to  love  God,  while  he  only  hated  him— his  mind 
was  enmity  against  him  him,  and  he  was  not  subject  to 
his  law  ? 

But  even  supposing  it  was  the  effect  of  his  own  ex¬ 
ertion  as  the  proximate  cause — the  inquiry  is  still  but 
begun,  and  no  solution  given  ; — another  question  is 


33 


still  to  be  asked,  how  and  by  whom  was  he  moved  and 
excited  to  make  these  exertions  ?  Should  it  be  answer¬ 
ed  that  it  was  in  the  exercise  of  the  power  of  his  own 
free  will — no  advance  will  be  made — the  inquiring 
mind  is  still  unsatisfied — unrelieved. — We  have  not 
yet  found  the  bottom,  but  are  floating  upon  the  sur¬ 
face.  Unless  reason  be  hoodwinked,  one  question  fur¬ 
ther  is  unavoidable,  and  must  be  satisfactorily  answer¬ 
ed. — Admitting  it  to  be  a  true  maxim,  and  a  general 
rule  that  has  no  exceptions,  that  like  causes  under  like 
circumstances  ever  produce  like  effects  ;  how  comes  it 
to  pass,  that  others,  who  have  the  same  freedom  of 
will,  are  under  the  same  circumstances,  and  have  the 
same  motives  set  before  them,  do  not  put  forth  the 
same  exertions  and  obtain  the  same  end  ?  Now,  my 
friend  we  have  come  to  the  testing  point,  and  unless 
we  lay  aside  all  candour,  and  shut  our  eyes  to  the  light 
of  truth,  we  must  feel  ourselves  driven  to  this  alterna¬ 
tive,  either  that  it  is  an  effect  produced  without  any 
cause,  or  produced  by  a  special  divine  influence.  If 
you  admit  the  latter,  you  admit  all  that  is  contended 
for.  If  you  adopt  the  former,  you  must  do  violence 
to  reason,  as  well  as  renounce  every  passage  of  scrip¬ 
ture  that  intimates  any  thing  like  a  divine  election,  ei¬ 
ther  as  without  any  meaning,  or,  what  is  worse,  utterly 
false  ;  for  every  effect  must  have  a  cause,  and  chance 
is  no  cause,  and  can  neither  design  nor  choose.  On 
this  ground  you  must  relinquish  all  assured  foundation 
of  hope,  and  all  comfort  of  hope,  for  the  issue  of  all 
would  be  too  precarious,  on  which  to  place  any  de¬ 
pendence,  or  build  any  hope.  You  might  chance  to 
fail  of  salvation,  as  probably  as  to  obtain  it,  and  much 
more  so,  as  might  be  shown  :  for  your  self-acquired 
holiness,  even  were  it  real  holiness,  is  not  in  its  nature 
such  as  cannot  be  lost.  And  if  you  resort  to  this 
ground  of  confidence,  for  that  strong  consolation  of 
hope,  which  the  scriptures  promise  to  the  believer,  as 
an  anchor  to  the  soul  sure  and  stedfast  ;  give  me  leave 
to  say,  you  will  never  find  it,  but  your  hope  will  be 
like  the  giving  up  of  the  ghost. — Must  not  then,  every 
rational  attentive  mind,  that  will  allow  itself  to  think 
candidly  upon  the  subject,  be  convinced  that  all  the 


34 


events  of  time  are  according  to  the  eternal  purpose  of 
God  ;  and  subscribe  to  that  unpopular  sentiment  of 
the  Assembly  of  Divines,  that  “  according  to  the  coun¬ 
sel  of  his  own  will,  and  for  his  own  glory  God  hath 
foreordained  whatsoever  comes  to  pass  ?”  His  ways 
are  indeed  above  to  us.  The  mode  of  the  divine  ope¬ 
ration,  or  how  it  is  that  God  worketh  all  in  all,  is  an 
unsearchable  subject,  and  among  those  deep  and  se¬ 
cret  things  of  God,  which  it  is  his  glory  to  conceal  and 
our  duty  to  receive  and  embrace,  with.an  implicit  faith 
in  his  word.  But,  whatever  is  obscure  and  incompre¬ 
hensible,  thus  much  is  certain,  that  those  effectually 
called,  are  the  men  chosen  in  Christ  before  the  foun¬ 
dation  of  the  world.  This  the  apostle  made  the  sub¬ 
ject  of  his  joyful  thanksgiving  to  God - “Blessed  be 

the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who 
Ira th  blessed  us  with  all  spiritual  blessings  in  heav¬ 
enly  places  in  Christ.  According  as  he  hath  chosen 
us  in  him  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  that 
we  should  be  holy,  and  without  blame  before  him  in 
love.  Having  predestinated  us  unto  the  adoption  of 
children  by  Jesus  Christ,  to  himself,  according  to  the 
good  pleasure  of  his  will.”  Ephesians  i.  3,  4. 

In  the  foregoing  passage,  these  several  points  of 
doctrine  are  fully  expressed,  viz.  that  God  hath  elect¬ 
ed  some  to  eternal  life — that  this  election  is  not  made 
in  time  but  from  eternity — that,  God  had  no  motive 
out  of  himself  for  this  election  ;  it  was  “  according  to 
the  good  pleasure  of  his  own  will”--and  that  it  was 
not  for  their  foreseen  good  works,  holiness  or  faith, 
that  they  were  elected  ; — their  holiness  was  not  the 
cause,  but  the  effect  of  their  election; — they  were  cho¬ 
sen,  not  because  they  were ,  but  that  they  “  should  be 
holy  and  without  blame  before  him  in  love.” — But 
while  grace  and  mercy  shine  on  the  elect,  no  injury  is 
done  to  others  ;  and  arguments  and  motives  to  indus¬ 
try,  and  the  diligent  use  of  means  are  not  enervated 
but  enforced  by  this  very  consideration.  The  words 
of  Peter  and  Paul  are  full  to  this  point — “  Wherefore 
the  rather  Brethren,  give  all  diligence  to  make  your 
calling  and  election  sure,  for  if  ye  do  these  things,  }'e 
shall  never  fall,”  2  Peter  i,  10,  **  Work  out  your 


35 


own  salvation  with  fear  and  trembling,  for  it  is  God 
who  worketh  in  you  both  to  will  and  to  do  of  his  good 
pleasure.  Who  fulfilleth  in  us  the  whole  good  pleas¬ 
ure  of  his  goodness,  and  the  work  of  faith  with  pow¬ 
er.” 

The  doctrine  of  the  Saint’s  perseverance  in  holi¬ 
ness,  is  inseparably  connected  with  that  of  Election, 
and  is  essential  to  the  accomplishment  of  God’s  eter¬ 
nal  purpose  of  grace  to  the  redeemed.  If  there  be 
evidence  that  any  of  our  race,  ever  have  been,  or  ever 
will  be  saved,  it  rests  wholly  upon  this  doctrine,  and 
without  it,  must  fall  to  the  ground.  It  is  granted  that 
the  Christian  is  in  himself  capable  of  falling  away. 
His  security  lies  not  in  his  own  strength  or  sufficiency. 
Creature  holiness  is  in  its  nature  loseable.  Facts 
prove  it.  It  has  been  lost.  Adam  fell  from  a  state 
of  perfect  holiness  ;  and  man  recovers  holiness  on¬ 
ly  by  sovereign  efficacious  grace.  Angels  in  glory 
fell,  and  are  sealed  in  remediless  ruin.  If  then  crea¬ 
tures  in  perfect  holiness,  could  not  stand  without  di¬ 
vine  aid,  the  evidence  is  much  stronger,  that  creatures 
but  partially  sanctified,  cannot  stand,  but  will  fall  from 
grace,  without  divine  aid  to  uphold  them  ;  and  if  the 
Christian  have  not  the  aid  of  upholding  and  preserv¬ 
ing  grace — If  Christ  hath  not  said,  “  Because  I  live,  ye 
shall  live  also” — farewell  to  the  Christian  hope — fare¬ 
well  holiness — farewell  heaven  : — the  gospel  is  but  a 
farce — Christ  has  died  in  vain  ;  and  hell  must  be  the 
portion,  the  inevitable  doom  of  every  child  of  Adam, 
It  is  wonderful  indeed — it  is  truly  astonishing,  how 
any  rational  being  who  discards  this  doctrine,  can  yet 
flatter  himself  with  the  hope  of  heavenly  blessedness. 
What  joy  or  confidence  can  a  believer  derive  from  the 
clearest  evidence  of  his  interest  in  Christ,  if  he  have 
no  promise  to  rest  upon  for  his  continuance  in  this 
state?  He  can  have  nothing  before  him,  but  the  gloomy, 
sinking  fear  of  final  apostaey  and  separation  from 
Christ.  Could  this  afford  that  strong  consolation 
which  God  hath  provided  for  the  heirs  of  promise, 
that  sure  and  stedfast  anchor  to  those  that  have  fled  for 
refuge  to  lay  hold  on  the  hope  set  before  them  ?  Could 
this  be  joy  unspeakable  and  full  of  glory  ?  How  can 


36 


the  believer  have  that  peace  of  God  which  passeth  un¬ 
derstanding,  to  keep  his  mind  and  heart,  without  a  well 
grounded  hope  of  eternal  life  ?  And  how  can  he  have 
this  hope,  without  a  divine  security  for  his  continuance 
in  a  state  of  safety  ?  Or  how  can  he  possibly  have  such 
security,  while  he  is  ever  actually  liable  to  a  final  apos- 
tacy  ?  By  this  the  believer  would  be  left  comfortless’. 
But  blessed  be  God  he  has  not  left  his  children  thus 
comfortless.  No.  He  makes  them  joy  in  God,  by  whom 
they  have  received  the  sure  atonement — nay  the  God 
of  peace  fills  them  with  all  joy  and  peace  in  believing. 
The  Christian  hope  is  built  upon  a  stable  and  perma¬ 
nent  foundation.  It  rests  upon  the  oath  and  promise 
of  a  God  who  cannot  lie;  and  who  has  promised  that 
he  will  keep  them  by  his  power  through  faith  unto  sal¬ 
vation.  So  that  every  true  believer  in  Christ,  building 
his  hope  upon  the  immutable  promise  of  God,  may  join 
in  that  triumphant  challenge  of  the  apostle,  “  Who 
shall  separate  us  from  the  love  of  Christ?  Shall  tribu¬ 
lation  or  distress,  or  persecution,  or  famine,  or  naked¬ 
ness,  or  peril,  or  sword  ?  Nay,  in  all  these  things,  we 
are  more  than  conquerors,  through  him  that  loved  us ; 
for  I  am  persuaded  that  neither  death,  nor  life,  nor 
principalities, nor  powers,  nor  things  present  northings 
to  come,  nor  height,  nor  depth,  nor  any  other  crea¬ 
ture,  shall  be  able  to  seperate  us  from  the  love  of  God 
which  is  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord.” 

There  are  a  few  passages  of  Scripture,  which  in 
their  form  of  expression  seem  to  favour  the  sentiment 
of  falling  from  grace,  and  are  relied  upon  as  proofs  by 
the  advocates  of  the  doctrine.  Of  these  I  shall  call 
your  attention  but  to  one,  and  occupy  the  remainder  of 
my  letter  with  an  exposition  of  the  memorable  passage 
in  Ezekiel  xviii.  24,  to  examine  its  legitimate  bearing 
upon  the  subject ;  if  any  it  have. 

“  But  w?hen  the  righteous  turneth  away  from  his 
righteousness,  and  committeth  iniquity,  and  doeth  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  abomination  that  the  wicked  man  doth — 
shall  he  live  ?  All  the  righteousness  that  he  hath  done, 
shall  not  be  mentioned-— in  his  trespass,  that  he  hath 
trespassed,  and  in  his  sin  that  he  hath  sinned,  in  them 
shall  he  die.” 


37 


This  passage  of  scripture  is  differently  construed, 
and  by  a  certain  class  of  Christians  relied  upon  in  sup¬ 
port  of  a  scheme  of  doctrines  essentially  opposed  to 
the  orthodox  creed.  In  the  importance  of  its  being 
rightly  understood,  all,  however  must  be  agreed.  For 
this  end,  it  is  necessary  to  approach  it  with  candour, 
and  a  sincere  desire  for  the  truth.  In  my  view,  there 
is  no  real  obscurity  in  the  passage  itself.  It  is  express¬ 
ed  in  terms  so  plain  and  definite,  as  to  carry  its  mean¬ 
ing  in  the  very  face  of  it.  The  literal  sense  is  obvious 
at  a  glance.  It  is  not  in  this  that  the  disagreement 
arises.  All  will  concede  that  the  righteous  and  wick¬ 
ed  are  contrasted — that  moral  character  is  marked  by 
moral  conduct — that  when  the  righteous  man  ceases  to 
live  in  obedience  to  the  commands  of  God,  and  gives 
himself  up  to  a  life  of  sin — all  the  evidence  of  his  mor¬ 
al  goodness  is  invalidated, — he  forfeits  the  character  of 
a  righteous  man  ;  and  is  viewed  and  will  be  treated  by 
God  as  a  transgressor — an  impenitent  sinner.  This  is 
the  plain,  unequivocal  instruction  here  given.  “  When 
the  righteous  turneth  away  from  his  righteousness, 
and  committeth  iniquity,  and  doeth  according  to  all 
the  abominations  that  the  wicked  man  doeth — shall 
he  live  ?  All  his  righteousness  that  he  hath  done,  shall 
not  be  mentioned — in  his  tresspasses  that  he  hath  tres¬ 
passed,  and  in  the  sin  that  he  hath  sinned,  shall  he 
die.” 

The  misapplication  of  this  passage,  lies  in  a  wrong 
inference  which  some  draw  from  it.  The  question 
arises,  does  the  righteous  man  ever  in  fact  become  a 
wicked  man  ? — or  does  the  real  Christian  ever  fall 
from  grace  ?  The  statement  is  supposed  to  imply  the 
possibility  of  the  thing,  as  an  event  to  which  the  Chris¬ 
tian  is  liable  ; — but,  in  fact,  it  decides  nothing  upon  the 
point.  It  has  no  bearing  on  the  subject.  The  con¬ 
clusion  is  unauthorized  from  the  premises,  and  made 
but  to  support  a  preconceived  and  favourite  sentiment. 

To  resolve  any  doubts  on  this  passage,  its  immedi¬ 
ate  connexion, —  the  scope  of  the  chapter,  and  its  ac¬ 
cordance  with  the  grand  scheme  of  Scripture  doc¬ 
trines,  are  all  to  be  taken  into  view.  In  pursuit  of  this 
method,  we  shall  not  essentially  mistake  the  meaning 

4 


38 


of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  a  brief  history  of  the  text 
will  cast  no  small  light  on  the  path  of  inquiry. 

In  the  time  of  Ezekiel’s  prophecy,  the  Israelites 
were  in  their  Babylonian  captivity.  They  had  suffer¬ 
ed  the  awful  judgments  of  Heaven  in  the  calamities  of 
a  most  distressing  war.  The  king  of  Babylon  with  his 
victorious  army  had  overrun  and  ravaged  their  country 
— slaughtered  many  of  their  brethren — robbed  and 
destroyed  their  temple,  and  carried  the  remainder  of 
them  away  as  captives  into  Chaldea,  where  in  a  state 
of  depression  and  servitude,  they  were  miserable  ex¬ 
iles  in  a  heathen  land.  Under  these  humbling  and 
distressing  circumstances,  powerfully  calculated  to 
lead  to  repentance  and  reformation,  they  hardened 
themselves  against  the  judgments  of  God — censured 
the  rectitude  of  his  government,  and  directly  taxed  him 
with  injustice  and  cruelty.  They  would  not  acknowl¬ 
edge  themselves  deserving  of  the  evils  which  they  suf¬ 
fered.  They  would  own  that  their  fathers,  who  had 
been  permitted  to  go  to  their  graves  in  peace,  had  sin¬ 
ned  and  provoked  the  anger  of  God,  for  which  these 
judgments  were  now  sent  upon  them  ;  and  that  they 
were  in  fact  suffering  the  punishment  due  to  their  fa¬ 
ther’s  crimes,  and  not  to  their  own.  So  fixed  were 
they  in  this  sentiment,  that  they  had  adopted  it  as  a 
maxim,  a  common-cant  proverb  in  general  use,  The 
fathers  have  eaten  sour  grapes,  and  the  children's  teeth 
are  set  on  edge.  The  prophet  was  sent,  charged  with 
a  special  commission  to  reprove  them  for  this  horrid 
reflection  on  the  divine  government,  and  to  silence 
their  rebellious  clamours,  by  justifying  the  ways  of  God 
as  equal  and  right ; — to  assure  them,  that  he  viewed 
and  treated  every  one  according  to  his  real  character ; 
— that  he  did  not  confound  the  innocent  with  the  guil¬ 
ty — or  punish  one  for  crimes  committed  by  another. 
“  What  mean  ye  that  ye  use  this  proverb  concerning 
the  land  of  Israel,  the  fathers  have  eaten  sour  grapes , 
and  the  children's  teeth  are  set  on  edge  ?  As  X  live  saith 
the  Lord  God  ye  shall  not  have  occasion  any  more  to 
use  this  proverb  in  Israel.  Behold  all  souls  are  mine 
— as  the  soul  of  the  father,  so  also  the  soul  of  the  son 
is  mine  ; — the  soul  that  sinneth,  shall  die.”  That  is, 


39 


your  fathers,  however  wicked  and  rebellious  they  were 
in  their  day,  are  still  my  creatures  and  in  my  hands. 
They  are  not  beyond  the  reach  of  punishment,  because 
they  are  removed  from  the  earth.  You  are  punished 
for  your  own  sins,  and  not  for  your  fathers  : — Every 
man  shall  bear  his  own  burden.  “  The  soul  that  sin- 
eth,  it  shall, die.”  The  Most  High  then  condescends 
to  reason  and  expostulate  with  them  upon  the  subject, 
by  stating  a  number  of  opposite  cases,  in  proof  of  the 
point,  in  the  nature  of  an  appeal  to  their  own  observa¬ 
tion  and  experience.  He  first  states  the  example  of  a 
righteous  man,  who  lives  in  obedience  to  the  com¬ 
mands  of  God,  and  abstains  from  the  impious  practi¬ 
ces  of  the  wicked,  and  declares,  he  shall  surely  live. 
He  then  varies  the  view- — If  he  have  a  son  of  an  oppo¬ 
site  character,  who  lives  regardless  of  the  duties  of  re¬ 
ligion,  walks  in  disobedience,  and  indulges  in  a  course 
of  impiety  towards  God  and  injustice  to  bis  fellow 
men — he  shall  surely  die — -his  blood  shall  be  upon  him. 
“Now,  lo,  if  he  beget  a  son  that  seeth  all  his  father’s 
sins,  which  he  did,  and  considereth  and  doeth  not  such 
like  — but  profits  by  his  father’s  evil  example,  to  turn 
from  sin,  and  lead  a  life  of  religion  and  holy  obedi¬ 
ence — lie  shall  not  die  for  the  iniquity  of  his  father — 
he  shall  surely  live.  The  justice  of  God  is  impartial. 
His  ways  are  equal.  His  righteousness  is  perfect.  He 
will  reward  every  man  according  to  his  works  and  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  fruit  of  his  doings.  The  soul  that  sin- 
eth  it  shall  die. — “The  son  shall  not  bear  the  iniqui¬ 
ty  of  his  father,  nor  the  father  bear  the  iniquity  of  the 
son.  The  righteousness  of  the  righteous  shall  be  up¬ 
on  him,  and  the  wickedness  of  the  wicked  shall  be  up¬ 
on  him.” 

The  justice  of  God  being  thus  copiously  declared, 
his  mercy  is  next  exhibited,  and  the  door  of  pardon 
and  reconciliation  set  open  to  the  penitent  sinner,  how¬ 
ever  guilty  and  vile.  “  But  if  the  wicked  will  turn 
from  all  his  sin  that  he  hath  committed,  and  keep  all 
my  statutes,  and  do  that  which  is  lawful  and  right,  he 
shall  surely  live,  he  shall  not  die.  All  his  transgres¬ 
sions  that  he  hath  committed,  shall  not  be  mentioned 
to  him — in  his  righteousness  that  he  hath  done  he  shall 


40 


Jive,”  To  give  the  important  idea,  the  more  forcible 

impression,  he  appeals  to  the  reason,  experience  anc! 

common  sense  of  mankind,  and  every  correct  notion 

of  Deity,  which  the  light  of  nature  teaches.  u  Have  I 

any  pleasure  at  all  that  the  wicked  should  die,  saith 

the  Lord  God,  and  not  that  he  should  turn  from  Ins 

way  and  live Can  a  being  of  infinite  perfection  take 

any  pleasure  in  the  sufferings  of  his  creatures  ?  Can 

the  kind  and  benevolent  parent  of  the  universe,  delight 

in  the  exercise  of  cruelty  towards  his  rational  off- 

•> 

spring? — Yet  his  mercy  is  not  built  upon  the  ruin  of 
his  justice  :  They  are  ever  exercised  in  perfect  har¬ 
mony  and  unitedly  displayed,  Pardon  and  salvation 
are  promised  only  to  the  'penitent  sinner,  who  turns 
from  his  evil  ways,  and  does  that  which  is  lawful  and 
right.  They  cannot  be  extended  to  the  impenitent, 
the  incorrigibly  wicked.  It  is  impossible  in  the  nature 
of  things.  It  is  infinitely  inconsistent  with  the  char¬ 
acter,  law  and  government  of  God.  Mankind  are 
now  forming  £ their  characters  for  eternity — preparing 
for  an  unchangeable  state  of  retribution  ;  and  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  characters  they  now  form,  and  with  which 
they  leave  this  world,  will  be  their  condition  in  the 
next.  The  test  of  sincerity  is  persevering  obedience. 

To  such  only  is  the  promise  of  salvation  made.  “  He 
that  endureth  to  the  end,  the  same  shall  be  saved. 

And  therefore,  for  the  conviction  and  confusion  of  all 
apostatizing  Christians,  and  selfrighteous  hypocrites, 
the  solemn  declaration  is  added — “  But  when  the  . 
righteous  turneth  away  from  his  righteousness  and 
committeth  iniquity,  and  doeth  according  to  all  the 
abominations  that  the  wicked  man  doeth;  shall  he 
live  ?  All  his  righteousness  that  he  hath  done,  shall  not 
be  mentioned — in  his  trespass  that  he  hath  trespass¬ 
ed,  and  in  his  sin  that  he  hath  sinned,  shall  he  die.” 

From  the  exposition  now  made,  it  is  evident  that 
nothing  said  in  the  18th  Chapter  of  Ezekiel,  has  any 
application  or  relevancy  to  the  present  subject  of  in¬ 
quiry.  It  neither  decides,  nor  touches  it.  Whether 
the  righteous  man  under  the  gospel  dispensation  shall 
ever  turn  away  from  his  righteousness,  or  the  Christian 
fall  from  grace,  is  another  question  entirely  distinct, 


41 


and  must  be  supported,  if  it  can  be  supported,  by  other 
Scripture  authorities  ; — and  these,  it  is  confidently 
presumed,  cannot  be  found  in  the  divine  oracles. 

That  we  may  not  however  fail  of  receiving  the  legi¬ 
timate  instruction  which  this  sacred  passage  affords, 
let  us  briefly  notice  a  few  important  points  of  gospel 
doctrine,  which  are  the  most  prominent,  and  fairly 
deducible  from  the  exposition  given. 

1.  The  perfect  rectitude  and  impartial  justice  of  the 
divine  government.  God  is  influenced  by  no  undue 
affection,  prejudice  or  prepossession,  but  views  and 
treats  every  individual  according  to  his  real  present 
character. 

2.  In  the  government  of  God,  there  is  no  transfer¬ 
ence  of  moral  character,  or  desert  from  one  to  another 
— no  imputation  either  of  guilt  or  righteousness — but 
every  man’s  moral  character  in  the  sight  of  God  is 
formed  by  himself,  and  established  upon  the  basis  of 
his  own  moral  conduct— “  the  son  shall  not  bear  the 
iniquity  of  the  father,  neither  shall  the  father  bear  the 
iniquity  of  the  son — the  soul  that  sinneth  it  shall  die.” 
How  then,  it  may  be  asked,  are  mankind  affected,  ei¬ 
ther  by  Adam’s  sin,  or  Christ’s  righteousness?  I  answer, 
in  neither  by  imputation,  or  an  absolute,  positive 
tranfer  of  personal  moral  desert.  Holiness  is  the  only 
quality  in  the  character  of  moral  beings,  in  which  God 
takes  any  complacence.  “  Without  holiness  no  man 
shall  see  the  Lord” — which  as  necessarily  implies,  that 
wherever  holiness  is  found,  it  meets  the  divine  accept¬ 
ance  and  secures  the  favour  of  God.  Therefore, 

3.  To  hope  for  the  divine  approbation,  without  per¬ 
sonal  holiness,  is  a  delusion — a  mark  of  the  deceived 
hypocrite.  And  yet  are  there  not  many  professing 
Christians,  and  perhaps  real  Christians,  in  a  measure 
betrayed  into  this  inconsistency  ?  They  do  not  enjoy 
God— their  affections  are  cold  and  formal — they  feel 
themselves  destitute  of  the  life  and  power  of  religion — 
they  have  no  sensible  communion  with  God — no  mani¬ 
festations  of  his  special  grace; — and  yet,  notwithstand¬ 
ing  all  this  evidence  to  the  contrary,  they  will  cherish 
the  idea,  that  God  loves  them,  and  has  complacency  in 
them  for  Christ’s  sake.  It  is  a  deception.  God  does 

4  # 


4£ 


not  approve  of  tlieir  characters  for  Christ’s  sake  ;  and 
no  farther  does  he  approve  of  them,  than  as  they  are 
conformed  to  Christ,  and  possess  and  exercise  his  spir¬ 
it  : — and  as  far  as  they  think  that  God  approves  of 
them  for  Christ’s  sake,  while  destitute  of  his  spirit  they 
deceive  themselves,  and  if  they  continue  to  cherish 
this  hope  in  a  life  of  sin,  it  is  a  fatal  deception.  It  was 
not  Christ’s  errand  into  the  world  to  render  sin  accep¬ 
table  to  God,  but  to  condemn  it  utterly.  God’s  appro¬ 
bation  of  any  creature,  is  ever  in  exact  proportion  to 
the  personal  holiness  of  his  present  character  ;  and  the 
man’s  religious  enjoyment  never  rises  higher  than  his 
religious  exercises.  The  Christians  deadness  and  for¬ 
mality  in  religion,  and  his  want  of  religious  enjoyment, 
are  in  themselves  evidences  of  God’s  disapprobation. 
There  is  no  affectation  in  the  Most  High.  God  ever 
manifests  to  every  one  of  his  creatures,  all  the  appro¬ 
bation  which  he  feels  towards  them,  and  no  more.  Sin 
is  as  hateful  to  God  in  his  own  children,  as  it  is  in  his 
enemies — yea  as  it  is  in  the  devils.  In  this  light  ought 
Christians  to  view  themselves,  and  not  to  think  that 
God  loves  them  and  approves  of  them,  any  farther  than 
they  have  and  do  exercise  real  holiness. — Therefore, 

4.  All  who  trust  in  past  experience  and  supposed 
conversion,  must  stand  reproved.  The  only  evidence 
of  grace,  is  the  present  exercise  of  it ;  and  God  views 
every  creature  according  to  his  real  present  character, 
let  his  past  conduct  have  been  whatever  it  may.  Pre¬ 
sent  wickedness  of  heart  and  life  expunges  all  past 
evidence  of  holiness; — for  when  the  righteous  man 
turneth  away  from  his  righteousness,  and  leads  a  life 
of  sin — alibis  righteousness  that  he  hath  done  shall  not 
be  mentioned — but  he  shall  die  in  his  transgressions. 
Thus  creatures  are  changeable,  and  creature  holiness 
is  capable  of  being  lost. 

On  this  point  God  hath  given  us  an  ever  memorable 
example,  exactly  corresponding  with  this  declaration 
of  his  word.  Adam  the  first  parent  of  our  race  was 
created  in  holiness.  He  once  loved  God  with  all  his 
heart.  But  this  righteous  man  turned  away  from  his 
righteousness  and  committed  iniquity  ; — of  course,  he 
immediately  lost  the  approbation  and  favour  of  God, 


L 


43 


He  acquired  the  character  of  a  sinner  and  that  only. 
All  his  righteousness  which  he  once  had  and  previ¬ 
ously  exercised,  shall  never  be  mentioned.  It  is  com¬ 
pletely  obliterated  and  gone,  as  if  it  had  never  been  ; 
and  whether  he  stood  a  day  or  a  year,  or  a  thousand 
years,  is  wholly  immaterial  ; — the  moment  he  turned 
away  from  his  righteousness — all  his  righteousness 
that  he  had  done  was  forever  lost,  both  to  himself  and 
the  universe,  and  shall  never  be  mentioned. 

5.  The  subject  is  a  bright  exhibition  of  the  mercy  of 
God  ; — the  infinite  provision  which  he  hath  made  for 
the  sinners  of  mankind,  and  the  moving  encouragement 
he  sets  before  the  wicked  to  turn  from  his  wickedness 
—repent  of  his  sins,  and  do  that  which  is  lawful  and 
right.  “  If  the  wicked  turn  from  all  his  sins  which  he 
hath  committed,  and  keep  my  statutes,  and  do  that 
which  is  lawful  and  right,  he  shall  surely  live;  he  shall 
not  die.  All  his  transgressions  that  he  hath  commit¬ 
ted,  shall  not  be  mentioned  to  him  ; — in  his  righteous¬ 
ness  that  he  hath  done,  he  shall  live.”  God  hath  pro¬ 
vided  an  allsufficient  remedy  in  the  atoning  blood  of 
Christ.  His  holy  displeasure  against  sin  is  fully  mani¬ 
fested  in  the  sufferings  of  his  Son — the  law  honored — 
justice  satisfied — every  bar  in  the  way  removed,  and 
the  mercy  of  God  is  infinite — it  is  boundless  as  his  na¬ 
ture.  No  sins  are  too  many  or  too  great  for  God  to 
forgive.  The  invitation  is  universal.  The  promise 
of  pardon  to  the  penitent  is  unlimited.  Past  wicked¬ 
ness  however  great  is  no  bar  in  the  way  of  pardon  to 
the  penitent  sinner.  As  soon  as  ever  he  repents  of 
his  sin — turns  from  his  wicked  way,  and  lives  in  obe¬ 
dience,  all  his  past  sins  are  forever  blotted  out,  and  he 
stands  as  fully  in  the  divine  favour,  as  if  he  had  never 
committed  one  sin  : — they  will  not  be  brought  up 
against  him— -nor  mentioned.— -Let  us  then  welcome 
the  glad  tidings  of  the  gospel,  as  all  our  salvation  and 
all  our  desire. 

Yours  sincerely, 

Aristarchus. 


LETTER  IV. 


Dear  Sir, 

The  character  of  God  and  man,  are  the  two  great 
foundation  principles  upon  which  the  whole  system  of 
Christian  Theology  is  built.  The  former  is  primary  and 
of  leading  influence — but  both  are  mutually  connected 
by  an  inseparable  relation.  I  shall  not  attempt,  there¬ 
fore  to  disjoin  them,  but  treat  of  them  in  their  connex¬ 
ion  and  in  a  collective  view. 

According  to  the  views  which  a  man  entertains  of 
the  character  of  his  God,  will  be  his  views  of  his  own 
character  ;  and  the  nature  and  complexion  of  every 
part  of  his  religious  system,  both  in  faith  and  practice, 
will  be  conformable  to  these  two  fundamental  articles 
of  his  creed.  “  Every  man”  saith  the  prophet  “  will 
walk  in  the  name  of  his  God.”  Were  mankind  agreed 
in  these  two  points,  they  would  not  be  essentially  dis¬ 
agreed  in  any  other. 

Your  late  favour  in  answer  to  the  remarks  made  in 
my  former  communications,  I  have  received,  and  care¬ 
fully  examined  its  contents  ;  and  while  opposed  in  my 
views  of  divine  truth,  I  am  pleased  with  the  honest 
frankness  with  which  you  express  the  reasons  of  your 
dissent  to  the  doctrines  I  have  advocated.  I  shall  now 
endeavour  to  give  each  of  your  objections  in  their  or¬ 
der,  a  fair  and  candid  examination,  making  the  knowl¬ 
edge  and  establishment  of  truth  the  primary  object  of 
research. 

The  first  objection  offered,  is  stated  in  the  following 
terms  ; — 

“  Your  views  of  the  total  depravity  of  mankind,  as 
a  natural  and  necessary  consequence  of  the  original 
apostacy,  while  you  disclaim  the  idea  of  imputed  guilt, 
do,  in  effect,  establish  it,  by  the  evil  consequences  to 
his  posterity  which  you  connect  with  Adams  first  sin. 
And  how  is  this  consistent  with  that  Bible  sentiment 


45 


which  you  adduce  in  illustration  of  the  subject,  that 
the  ‘  son  shall  not  be  punished  for  his  fathers  sins  ’?” 

A  minutes  candid  attention  to  this  query,  will,  I 
think,  be  sufficient  to  remove  the  difficulty.  The  ob¬ 
jection  arises  from  a  mistaken  view  of  the  nature  of 
punishment,  and  not  making  a  proper  distinction  be¬ 
tween  it  and  guilt.  Let  it  be  determined,  then,  in  the 
fust  place,  what  is  punishment?  And  I  hesitate  not 
to  say,  that  punishment  must  consist  in  something 
which  is  contrary  to  the  choice,  disagreeable  to  the 
feelings,  and  brings  pain  and  suffering  to  the  subject 
of  it.  It  cannot,  otherwise  be  punishment.  It  must, 
therefore  consist,  not  in  action  but  suffering — not  in 
moral,  but  in  natural  evil.  If  so,  the  total  depravity  of 
mankind,  as  the  consequence  of  Adam’s  transgression, 
and  which  consists  in  moral  character  solely,  and  im¬ 
plies  in  itself  no  suffering — cannot  be,  to  them,  any 
punishment — for  it  is  the  object  of  their  choice,  and 
perfectly  agreeable  to  their  natural  taste.  We  know 
that  God  visits  the  iniquity  of  the  fathers  upon  their 
children — this  is  expressly  declared  in  the  second 
commandment, — that  is,  wicked  parents  shall  have 
wicked  children  like  themselves.  This  is  according 
to  the  Adamic  constitution,  and  an  established  princi¬ 
ple  of  the  divine  government — but  it  is  not  punishing 
the  son  for  his  fathers  sins. 

Spiritual  death  is  not  punishment — but  guilt.  It  is 
that  which  renders  the  subject  deserving  of  punish¬ 
ment.  Total  depravity  is  indeed  a  great  calamity  to 
mankind.  It  is  the  cause  of  their  misery,  and  of  their 
eternal  ruin— it  is  not  a  penal  evil,  but  that  for  which 
they  are  punished.  If  it  were  punishment,  such  a  case 
as  this  would  be  reasonable  and  parallel— a  thief  and  a 
murderer  are  duly  convicted  of  their  respective  crimes, 
and  the  Court  awards  sentence  that  the  one  shall  steal, 
and  the  other  murder  again. 

Your  next  objection  is  of  a  kindred  character,  though 
an  appeal  is  made  to  Scripture  authority.  You  say— 
“The  moral  purity  of  children  is  proved  by  our  Sav¬ 
iours  declaration  in  Matthew  18.  3.  “  Verily  I  say  unto 
you  except  ye  be  converted,  and  become  as  little  chil¬ 
dren,  ye  shall  not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven,” 


46 


Now  if  conversion  necessarily  implies  holiness  in  its 
subject,  these  words  of  Christ  necessarily  ascribe  holi¬ 
ness  to  children — or  there  could  be  no  justice,  or  pro¬ 
priety  in  similitude.  Otherwise,  the  construction 
would  be,  Except  ye  be  converted,  and  become  totally 
depraved,  and  wholly  at  enmity  with  God,  ye  shall  not 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

This  construction,  my  friend,  give  me  leave  to  say, 
does  not  necessarily  follow  from  the  total  depravity  of 
infants — nor  is  their  holiness  either  expressed  or  im¬ 
plied  in  this  declaration  of  the  Saviour.  It  does  not 
arise  from  the  immediate  or  remote  connexion  of  the 
words — nor  was  it  the  particular  instruction  designed 
to  be  communicated  by  the  comparison.  A  similitude 
does  not  imply  likeness  in  all  respects,  between  the 
objects  compared.  They  may  be  in  their  nature  en¬ 
tirely  different,  yet  in  some  of  their  visible  properties, 
a  general  resemblance  traced,  and  fitly  applied  in  illus¬ 
tration  of  some  particular  truth,  perhaps  totally  diffe¬ 
rent  from  that  of  the  object  to  which  it  is  compared. — 
We  have  a  striking  example  of  this,  in  our  Saviours 
parable  of  the  unjust  Steward,  in  Luke  16th  and  par¬ 
ticularly  in  the  8th  and  9th  verses,  where  the  parable 
is  applied.  “  And  the  Lord  commended  the  unjust 
Steward,  because  he  had  done  wisely,  for,  the  children 
of  this  world  are  wiser  in  their  generation  than  the 
children  of  light.  And  I  say  unto  you,  make  to  your¬ 
selves  friends  of  the  mammon  of  unrighteousness,  that 
when  ye  fail,  they  may  receive  you  into  everlasting 
habitations.” 

Here  we  see  the  unjust  Steward  is  commended  ;  and 
his  conduct  while  in  office,  in  providing  for  his  future 
maintenance,  when  divested  of  his  stewardship,  held 
up  as  an  example  worthy  the  imitation  of  mankind  ; — 
in  illustration  of  whose  circumstances  and  future  pros¬ 
pects,  the  parable  was  spoken  and  applied.  But  for 
what  was  the  unjust  Steward  commended  ?  Was  it  for 
his  dishonesty  in  wasting  his  Master’s  goods,  or  de¬ 
frauding  him  of  his  just  dues  ?  Certainly  not.  In  this 
point,  the  parable  had  no  application.  Christ  did  not 
commend  him  as  an  example  in  this  view,  but  only  in 
a  comparative  light,  as  being  so  far  worthy  of  imita- 


47 


tion  by  the  children  of  light,  as  that  they  should  by 
proper  means  take  the  same  care  and  pains  to  secure 
the  happiness  of  heaven,  after  this  world,  as  the  unjust 
Steward  did  by  his  dishonest  practice,  to  secure  a  fu¬ 
ture  living,  after  he  had  lost  his  stewardship. 

And  no  more  does  the  passage  which  you  have 
brought,  signify  a  similitude  in  all  respects.  By  the 
necessity  of  our  being  converted,  and  becoming  as  lit¬ 
tle  children,  in  order  to  enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
it  is  no  more  implied  that  little  children  have  any  nat¬ 
ural  holiness,  than  in  the  other,  that  the  unjust  Stew¬ 
ard  was  commended  for  his  dishonesty;  or  that  because 
he  was  proposed  as  an  example  for  our  imitation, 
therefore  he  was  an  honest  and  good  man.  They  are 
both  parables  or  similitudes,  and  the  extent  of  their 
instruction  is  to  be  learned,  by  viewing  their  design 
and  occasion,  and  their  connexion  with  other  pertinent 
passages  of  scripture. 

Let  us  then  examine  your  text  by  these  rules.  The 
disciples  appliedto  Christ  with  this  question,  “  Who 
is  the  greatest  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven?”  Christ’s  an¬ 
swer  was  in  the  best  manner  calculated  to  inform  their 
understandings,  and  correct  their  pride.  “  And  Jesus 
called  a  little  child  unto  him,  and  set  him  in  the  midst 
of  them,  and  said,  verily  I  say  unto  you,  except  ye  be 
converted  and  become  as  little  children,  ye  shall  not 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven.” 

The  feelings  and  behaviour  of  a  little  child  towards 
his  earthly  parent,  are  brought  to  illustrate  the  holy 
affections  of  the  child  of  God.  Though  the  seeds  of 
depravity  are  sown  in  the  very  constitution  of  the  hu¬ 
man  soul  ;  and  through  that  root  of  bitterness  shoots 
up  in  the  first  opening  of  the  spring  of  life  ;  yet  in  lit¬ 
tle  children,  before  the  prejudices  of  others  are  imbib¬ 
ed,  and  their  natural  corruptions  strengthened  by  evil 
example  and  vicious  habits  of  adult  years,  nature  then 
exhibits  a  fairer  semblance  of  true  virtue,  than  at  any 
after  period  of  an  impenitent  state.  This  comparison, 
therefore,  of  our  Saviour  implies,  that,  that  spirit  of  de¬ 
pendence  and  filial  love — that  submission  and  respect 
to  his  authority — that  attachment  to  his  person,  char¬ 
acter  and  interest — that  hope,  trust,  confidence  fear  and 


48 


gratitude  which  a  little  child  exercises  towards  his  pa¬ 
rent,  flowing  from  the  source  of  natural  affections-- 
or,  in  connexion  with  this,  from  a  natural  smoothness 
and  tractability  of  temper  ;  are  emblematic  of  the 
Christian  temper  towards  God,  flowing  from  a  holy 
heart.  But  the  natural  are  perfectly  distinct  from  the 
moral  affections  ;  and  therefore  the  exercise  of  them 
does  not  imply  any  holiness  in  the  child. 

Upon  any  other  construction,  this  passage  would  be 
made  to  contradict  those  already  adduced,  which  de¬ 
clare  the  natural  total  depravity  of  the  human  heart,  in 
terms  too  plain  to  be  misunderstood. — A  recurrence 
to  one  of  these  will  be  sufficient;  and  it  is  our  Sav¬ 
iour’s  w'ords  to  Nicodemus — “  Verily,  verily,  I  say 
unto  thee,  except  a  man  be  born  again  he  cannot  see 
the  kingdom  of  God.”  Nicodemus  expressing  his  sur¬ 
prise  at  the  doctrine,  Christ  proceeded  to  instruct  him 
in  the  nature  of  the  new  birth.  “  Verily,  verily,  I  say 
unto  thee,  except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the 
Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God. 
That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh,  and  that  which 
is  born  of  the  spirit,  is  spirit.”  Here  the  first  and  se¬ 
cond,  or  the  natural  and  spiritual  birth  are  held  up  in 
contrast  and  distinguished  by  their  nature  and  effects. 
By  flesh  here  as  in  all  other  places  of  Scripture,  where 
it  is  expressive  of  moral  character,  is  meant  the  carnal 
mind.  “  The  flesh  lusteth  against  the  spirit,”  we  read, 
—  that  is,  the  exercises  of  the  carnal  mind  are  in  oppo¬ 
sition  to  those  of  the  renewed  spiritual  mind.  That 
which  is  born  in  the  flesh,  is  flesh — evidently  meaning, 
that  by  natural  birth  we  arc  possessed  of  a  carnal  mind. 
What  the  carnal  mind  is,  we  are  told,  Rom .  8.  7.  “  en¬ 
mity  against  God,  and  cannot  be  subject  to  his  law” — 
or  in  other  words,  that  it  is  totally  depraved.  This  is 
given  as  a  reason  of  the  necessity  of  the  New  Birth. 
Is  not  this  alone  sufficient  to  disprove  the  native  moral 
purity  of  children.  If  they  are  naturally  possessed  of 
it,  they  need  no  regeneration — they  may  see  the  king¬ 
dom  of  God  without  being  born  again. 

But  should  you  say,  that  notwithstanding  by  nature 
they  are  destitute  of  holiness,  yet  the  second  birth  im¬ 
mediately,  or  at  the  instant  of  baptism,  succeeds  the 


49 


first — this  would  be  an  assertion  wholly  without  proof, 
either  from  Scripture  or  experience.  But  in  doing 
this,  you  must  relinquish  the  idea  of  the  native  moral 
purity  of  children — for  there  can  be  no  moral  purity 
unless  it  be  native.  Regeneration  excludes  the  idea. 
Preternatural  holiness  necessarily  implies  natural  un¬ 
holiness.  There  can  be  no  such  thing  as  regeneration, 
unless  upon  a  subject  totally  depraved.  A  creature 
who  has  once  sinned,  will  eternally  after  be  a  guilty 
creature.  None  but  sinners  can  enter  through  the 
door  of  regeneration.  The  most  pious  Christian  on  earth, 
yea,  the  saints  in  glory,  who  are  made  perfect  in  holi¬ 
ness,  are,  and  ever  will  be  guilty  creatures,  and  per¬ 
sonally  deserving  of  eternal  punishment.  From  all 
which,  I  think  we  must  conclude,  that  our  Saviour’s  de¬ 
claration  in  Matthew  xvii.  3  ;  cannot  be  construed  to 
imply  the  native  moral  purity  of  children. 

You  proceed  in  your  reasonings  upon  this  subject, 
in  opposition  to  the  doctrine  of  human  depravity  as 
being  native  in  its  origin,  and  total  in  its  degree,  and  in 
your  next  objection  say, — 

Let  it  be  conceded  that  we  possess  a  sinful  nature, 
and  evil  propensities  ;  but  are  there  not  likewise,  good 
natural  dispositions  as  early  discoverable  as  evil  ones? 
I  am  fully  persuaded  there  are.  1  will  not  contend, 
however,  that  these  are  inherited  by  nature,  but 
wrought  by  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  through 
the  Redeemer.  You  will  indeed  find  children  subject 
to  wicked  passions — but  you  also  see  them  relenting 
for  their  indulgence.  They  are  possessed  of  many 
amiable  qualities— -are  grateful  to  their  parents- — just 
and  kind  to  their  companions-— sympathetic  towards 
the  afflicted— -strangers  to  envy  and  malice  ;  and,  if 
suitably  educated,  will  generally  grow  up  religious. 
But  what  more  especially  convinces  me  of  this,  is  that 
declaration  of  our  Saviour,  in  which  he  says  of  little 
children— “  Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven.” 

What  i3  commonly  cal  let!  a  good  natural  disposition, 
or  good  nature,  or  pleasant  temper,  or  sympathetic  spir¬ 
it,  may,  for  aught  [  know,  be  as  early  discoverable  in 
children  as  the  reverse — but  then  it  is  no  more  conclu¬ 
sive  evidence  of  moral  virtue,  or  any  more  the  genu- 


50 


ine  fruit  of  the  Spirit  of  God  than  a  good  natural  com¬ 
plexion,  or  symmetry  of  limbs  and  features.  These 
are  natural  endowments  and  some  of  them  merely  in¬ 
stinctive.  There  are  two  men,  one  of  a  mild,  placid 
natural  temper — the  other  morose  and  sullen  ;  and  yet 
neither  of  them  have  any  reconciliation  to  God.  The 
former,  though  he  be  naturally  pleasant,  sociable  and 
kind  to  his  fellow  men,  yet,  at  the  same  time,  may  dis¬ 
cover  no  regard  to  the  glory  of  God,  or  any  love  to  his 
character.  He  may  live  in  known  and  allowed  sins 
against  God,  and  scruple  not  to  break  his  commands  in 
innumerable  instances.  I  presume  you  may  easily  re¬ 
cognize  such  characters  within  the  circle  of  your  ac¬ 
quaintance. 

But  do  you  mean  (for  I  certainly  wish  to  understand 
you  correctly)  that  all  children  are  sanctified  by  the 
Spirit  of  God  in  infancy,  and  regenerated  as  soon  as 
they  are  born  ?  If  so,  I  ask,  on  what  evidence  your 
faith  is  built?  Both  Scripture  and  experience  are 
against  it.  Solomon,  by  inspiration  says,  that  “  fool¬ 
ishness  (by  which  he  invariably  means  wickedness) 
is  bound  up  in  the  heart  of  a  child.”  Prov.  xxii.  15. 
And  David,  “  The  wicked  are  estranged  from  the 
womb — they  go  astray  as  soon  as  they  be  born.” 
Psalm  lviii.3.  Estrangement  and  reconciliation  are  con¬ 
trasts  ;  and  if  they  are  estranged  from  the  womb,  they 
are  not  reconciled  from  the  womb. 

Furthermore,  if  mankind  are  sanctified  from  the 
womb,  or  regenerated  as  soon  as  born,  why  are  they 
not  universally  pious  in  adult  years  ?  This  would  be 
the  necessary  consequence.  Holiness  through  the 
merits  of  Christ,  once  given,  is  never  afterwards  lost — 
but  is  an  abiding  and  everlasting  principle  in  the  heart 
— it  is  eternal  life .  “  The  gifts  and  calling  of  God, 

are  without  repentance.”  Rom.  xi.  29. — Paul  says — 
“  Being  cofident  of  this  very  thing,  that  He  which  hath 
begun  a  good  work  in  you,  will  perform  it,  until  the 
day  of  Jesus  Christ.”  Phillpians  i.  6. — The  univer¬ 
sal  sanctification  of  children  is  therefore  fully  disprov¬ 
ed,  both  by  Scripture  and  facts. 

But  if  you  mean  only  that  God  does  actually  regene¬ 
rate  some  children  in  infancy  ;  it  is  agreed.  We  have 


51 


Scripture  examples.  Timothy  and  Josiah  were  pious 
in  childhood ;  and  Jeremiah  and  John  Baptist  were 
sanctified  in  the  womb.  But  does  all  this  disprove 
the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  or  establish  the  native 
moral  purity  of  children  ?  Directly  the  reverse.  And 
to  as  little  purpose  are  those  words  of  our  Saviour 
adduced — “  Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven.”  That 
little  children  may  be  the  subjects  of  divine  grace  and 
that  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  who  entertains 
a  doubt  ?  But  even  allowing  that  all  children  dying  in 
infancy  are  sanctified,  does  this  prove  that  all  other  in¬ 
fants  are  ?  Your  text  is  no  conclusive  proof  even  of 
the  former.  If  the  Saviour  had  said,  suffer  adult  sin¬ 
ners  of  mankind  to  come  unto  me,  (and  assuredly  he 
does  so  invite  them)  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  hea¬ 
ven — This  would  be  absolute  proof  of  the  salvation  only 
of  some  adult  sinners — it  would  be  wholly  inconclu¬ 
sive  to  prove  the  sanctification,  or  salvation  of  all. 

In  your  next  objection,  you  have  given  a  fuller  de- 
velopement  of  your  plan,  and  assumed  the  appearance 
of  reasoning,  with  a  laudable,  had  it  been  a  well  direct¬ 
ed  zeal,  for  the  honour  of  human  nature.  In  your  rea¬ 
sonings,  however,  opinion  is  substituted  for  argument, 
and  assertion  for  proof.  This  I  shall  now  attempt  to 
show;  and  to  meet  your  objection  fairly,  and  give  eve¬ 
ry  part  of  it,  its  due  weight,  I  shall  first  quote  the 
whole  of  it  at  large.  The  following  are  your  remarks. 

“The  doctrine  of  total  depravity  represents  man¬ 
kind  as  bad,  and  as  wicked  by  nature  as  the  infernal 
spirits.  But  this  is  surely  incorrect.  Men  have 
conscience,  and  where  that  exists,  the  principle  of 
moral  virtue  cannot  be  extinct.  Conscience  is  posses¬ 
sed  by  all,  and  is  derived  to  us  through  the  mediation 
of  Christ.  In  truth,  I  do  not  call  conscience  natural. 
It  would  sound  oddly  to  talk  of  the  devil’s  conscience. 

“If  by  conscience  be  meant  only  a  sense  of  guilt  and 
baseness  : — This  I  grant  the  devil  possesses — but 
does  not  human  nature,  through  the  Mediator  pos¬ 
sess  something  different  from  this?  Is  this  all  that 
we  mean  by  conscience?  Does  not  conscience  prompt 
us  to  do  the  thing  that  is  right,  when  known  ?  and 
upon  the  very  principle,  that  the  understanding  is 


52 


sensible  of  a  power  to  do  it,  and  to  avoid  the  contrary 
evil  ?  This  is  what  I  call  freedom.  Upon  your  princi¬ 
ple,  I  see  not  but  that  the  devil  is  as  free  to  act  as  men. 
i  make  no  doubt  that  he  freely  chooses  evil- — his  will 
is  thoroughly  inclined  to  it,  and  he  is  incapable  of  will¬ 
ing  any  thing  else — but  I  do  not  suppose  this  to  be  the 
case  with  men.” 

As  this  doctrine  is  rather  miscellaneous  and  multi¬ 
form,  I  shall  first  make  some  remarks  upon  the  subject 
of  Conscience  generally,  and  then  recite  and  particu¬ 
larly  answer  the  several  parts  of  your  objection  in  their 
order,  in  a  sort  of  colloquy. 

Conscience,  whatever  it  is,  was  not  lost  by  the  fall, 
and  therefore  is  not  what  was  restored  to  us  by  Christ, 
A  good  conscience  was  lost,  and  that  is  restored  to  the 
sanctified  by  Christ ; — but  Conscience  in  the  general 
sense  of  it,  the  thing  of  Which  we  are  now  treating,  is 
no  fruit  of  Christ’s  atonement.  That  it  should  operate 
as  a  restraint  upon  wicked  men  is — but  Conscience  it¬ 
self  is  not. 

This  may  help  us  to  a  right  understanding  of  the 
comparison  between  men  and  devils,  at  which  you 
seem  to  take  fright.  The  doctrine  of  total  depravity 
in  men,  it  is  true,  leaves  no  moral  essential  difference 
between  them  and  the  fallen  angels.  Men  by  nature 
have  no  more  real  holiness,  than  the  devils  have — nor 
does  the  possession  of  conscience  in  the  least  alter  the 
case.  Your  assertion,  that  where  conscience  exists, 
moral  virtue  cannot  be  extinct—I  do  not  believe.  In 
this  point  we  are  entirely  opposed,  and  for  a  decision 
must  have  some  better  proof  than  personal  opinion. 
God  has  indeed  distinguished  man  by  his  grace  in  pro¬ 
viding  for  his  salvation,  and  imposing  by  means  of  na¬ 
tural  conscience,  and  in  many  other  ways,  innumerable 
restraints  upon  his  corrupt  propensities.  Without 
these,  human  society  could  not  subsist  ;  or  the  ends  of 
a  probationary  state  be  answered.  These  external  cir¬ 
cumstances,  and  not  real  moral  character,  form  the  es¬ 
sential  difference  between  fallen  men  and  fallen  angels. 
They  may  differ  in  their  degrees  of  wickedness*  but 
exactly  symbolize  in  their  destitution  of  holiness.  If 
this  be  true,  your  sentiment  must  be  incorrect,  that 


53 


where  conscience  exists ,  the  'principle  of  moral  virtue 
cannot  be  extinct.  But  to  return  to  the  subject  pro¬ 
posed. 

Conscience  is  not  a  fruit  of  Christ’s  atonement.  It 
might  and  would  have  been  possessed  by  mankind, 
had  no  redemption  been  provided.  The  damned  in 
despair  possess  it  in  a  high  degree.  It  is  the  worm  that 
never  dies.  What  then  is  Conscience  ?  I  answer,  it  is 
simply  this — The  judgment  of  the  man  comparing  his 
conduct  with  an  apprehended  rule  of  duty  (I  say  ap¬ 
prehended  because  that  rule  may  be  true  or  false, 
real  or  imaginary)  and  discerning  the  argument 
or  disagreement  of  that  conduct  with  the  rule.  And 
the  office  of  consciene  is  twofold ,  either  to  accuse ,  or  ex¬ 
cuse — either  to  justify  or  to  condemn ,  according  as  that 
agreement  or  disagreement  is  discerned. 

When  the  rule  duly  is  rightly  apprehended,  and  the 
act  is  agreeable  to  that  rule,  and  that  agreement  dis¬ 
cerned — the  man  then  enjoys  a  good  conscience. 

When  the  rule  is  rightly  apprehended,  and  the  man 
conducts  contrary  to  it,  he  then  does  violence  to  his 
own  sense  of  right  ;  he  has  an  evil  or  wicked  con¬ 
science. 

When  the  rule  is  misapprehended,  and  the  man  con¬ 
ducts  either  agreeably  or  disagreeably,  to  that  misap¬ 
prehended  rule; — he  sins  in  either  case  ;  even  though 
his  conscience  acquit  him  for  acting  agreeably  to  his 
wrong  rule.  This  is  what  the  Apostle  calls  a  polluted 
or  defiled  conscience. 

It  is  easy  from  this  to  see,  that  conscience  is  not  a  rule 
or  standard  of  right.  We  have  no  other  standard,  but 
the  word  of  God.  Conscience  must  be  duly  regulated 
by  that,  for  the  man  to  be  right  in  acting  according 
to  his  own  conscience. --Paul  acted  very  conscientious¬ 
ly  in  persecuting  the  church  of  Christ.  It  was,  as  he 
thought,  from  a  zeal  for  God.  He  says  that  he  “  cer¬ 
tainly  thought  that  he  ought  to  do  many  things  con¬ 
trary  to  the  name  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.”  Acts  26. 
9.  Yet  he  conducted  very  wickedly  in  so  doing;  and 
afterwards  severely  condemned  himself  for  it. 

We  indeed  read  of  some,  who  have  become  callous 

5  * 


54 


to  a  sense  of  right  and  wrong ;  which  the  apostle  des¬ 
cribes  by  a  very  bold  and  striking  figure  ;  “  having 
their  conscience  seared  as  with  a  hot  iron.”  1.  Tim. 
iv.  2.  This  does  not  mean,  that  they  know  not  the  rule 
of  duty— or  discern  not  the  disagreement  of  their  own 
conduct  with  the  rule— or  that  they  have  no  conscience 
at  all  ; — but  that  they  have  been  so  long  in  the  habit 
of  doing  violence  to  their  conscience,  that  the  moral 
sense  becomes,  at  length,  stupified,  and  conscience 
ceases  to  do  its  office,  in  accusing  and  condemning  : 
not  that  consicence  ceases  to  exist — for,  conscience  is 
inseparable  from  the  nature  of  a  rational  being. 

I  shall  now  more  particularly  advert  to  your  reason¬ 
ings,  and  must  requote  your  words  in  their  order,  to 
consider  their  force  and  application. 

Philemon. In  truth  I  do  not  call  conscience  natural. 

Aristarchus.  It  is  a  truth  that  conscience  is  a  na¬ 
tural  faculty  of  the  mind,  as  much  so  as  reason  or  me¬ 
mory,  and  cannot  be  separated  even  in  idea  from  a  ra¬ 
tional  being.  A  good  conscience,  I  grant  is  supernatu¬ 
ral,  or  the  effect  of  special  grace.  The  apostle  says, 
“  We  trust  that  we  have  a  good  conscience.”  Heb .  xiii. 
8.  This  surely  admits  the  idea  of  an  evil  conscience. 

Here  then  is  the  foundation  of  your  error  upon  this 
point,  and  it  is  a  fruitful  source  of  error — 1  mean  your 
not  making  proper  distinctions.  By  conscience,  you 
mean  only  a  good  conscience.  An  evil  conscience,  how¬ 
ever,  is  no  less  conscience.  But  is  an  evil  conscience, 
a  defiled  or  polluted  conscience — a  hardened  or  seared 
conscience,  supernatural  to  us  ?  Not  if  we  are  natural¬ 
ly  wicked  and  wholly  so  as  has  been  shown.  This 
state  requires  no  supernatural  interposition  to  possess 
us  of  an  evil  conscience  We  do  not  need  the  media¬ 
tion  of  Christ  to  obtain  it.  Natural,  or  impenitent 
men,  therefore,  have  conscience  ;  and  therefore,  con¬ 
science  is  natural — for,  natural  men  have  no  endow¬ 
ment  that  is  supernatural. 

Philemon.  It  would  sound  oddly  to  talk  of  the  de¬ 
vil’s  conscience. 

Aristarchus.  This  is  because  you  invariably  at¬ 
tach  moral  goodness  to  conscience,  and  admit  not  the 
idea  of  an  evil  conscience.  The  devil  has  a  conscience 


55 


as  really  as  Belteshazzar  had,  when  he  saw  the  hand¬ 
writing  upon  the  wall  and  his  knees  smote  together. 
“  The  devils  also  believe  and  tremble  .”  which  they 
would  not  do,  were  they  not  by  conscience  convicted 
of  being  guilty  creatures,  and  justly  exposed  to  divine 
wrath. 

Philem.  If  by  conscience  be  meant  a  sense  of  guilt 
and  baseness,  this  I  grant  that  the  devil  possesses. 

Arxst.  You  then  grant  all  that  is  asked  ;  and  does 
not  the  knowledge  of  guilt,  a  sense  of  baseness  and  evil 
desert,  imply  a  conscience  in  exercise  ;  it  is  an  un¬ 
doubted  office  of  that  monitor  in  the  human  breast,  to 
reprove  and  condemn  for  sin.  “  Their  conscience  also 
bearing  witness,  and  their  thoughts,  the  mean  while 
accusing ,  or  else  excusing  one  another.”  Rom.  ii.  15, 
Remorse  is  predicable  only  of  conscience,  and  the  de¬ 
gree  of  it  is  always  in  proportion  as  conscience  does 
its  office.  Why  then  should  it  sound  oddly  to  you  to 
talk  of  the  devil’s  conscience? 

Philem.  But  does  not  human  nature  through  the 
Mediator  possess  something  different  from  this? 

Arist.  Yes,  in  a  limited  sense.  Through  the  Me¬ 
diator  the  saints  possess  a  good  conscience,  and  in  con¬ 
sequence  of  his  mediation,  all  men  who  have  not  a  de¬ 
filed  or  seared  conscience,  are  in  a  greater  or  less  de¬ 
gree  under  the  restraints  of  conscience. 

Philem.  Is  this  all  that  we  mean  by  conscience? 

Arist.  I  have  already  answered  this  question  in 
the  negative. 

Philem.  Does  not  conscience  prompt  us  to  do  the 
thing  that  is  right  when  known  ? 

Arise.  It  does  in  good  men — but  conscience  nev¬ 
er  prompted  an  impenitent  sinner  so  as  to  cause  him 
to  do  one  virtuous  action.  The  contrary  supposition 
would  imply  a  contradiction,  for  the  impenitent  heart 
is  enmity  against  God.  It  therefore,  constantly  and 
wholly  opposes  the  most  enlightened  conscience  ;  this 
dictates  love  to  God,  and  without  it  there  is  no  moral 
virtue  in  any  action  whatever. 

Philem.  And  upon  the  very  principle  that  the  un¬ 
derstanding  is  sensible  of  a  power  to  do  it  and  to  avoid 
the  contrary  evil  ? 


56 

Arist.  Yes— but  not  that  the  understanding  is  sen-"* 
sible  of  a  disposition  to  do  it,  and  to  avoid  the  contra¬ 
ry  evil.  This  is  never  the  case  with  the  natural  man. 
His  mind  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God,  nor  can  be. 

Philem.  This  is  what  I  call  freedom. 

Arist.  Natural  power  is  no  more  freedom,  than 
the  body  is  the  soul.  Freedom  to  moral  action  is  pred¬ 
icable  only  of  the  will.  A  natural  power  to  do  right  or 
wrong,  I  grant  is  the  foundation  of  freedom,  or  volun¬ 
tary  exercise  ;  and  so  too  the  body  is  a  vehicle  the 
soul,  yet  it  is  not  the  soul.  But  a  natural  power  does 
not  imply  a  disposition  towards  right.  It  is  the  dis¬ 
position  that  governs  the  man  ;  but  that  this  should  be 
equally  inclined  both  to  good  and  evil,  at  the  same 
time,  is  inconsistent  and  absurd. 

Phil.  Upon  your  principle,  I  see  not  but  that  the 
devil  is  as  free  to  act  as  men. 

Arist.  This  ought  to  convince  you  that  the  prin¬ 
ciple  is  right — for,  undoubtedly,  the  devil  is  as  free  to 
act  as  any  other  being  in  the  universe,  and  is  as  much 
a  moral  agent. 

Phil.  I  make  no  doubt,  but  he  freely  chooses  evil. 

Arist.  But  do  not  wicked  men  act  as  freely  as  the 
devil  does  in  choosing  evil  ? 

Phil.  His  will  is  thoroughly  inclined  to  it,  and  he 
is  incapable  of  willing  any  tiling  else. 

Arist.  And  just  as  much  is  the  will  of  impenitent 
men.  “  Every  imagination  of  the  thought  of  their 
heart  is  only  evil  continually.” 

Phil,  But  I  do  not  suppose  this  to  be  the  case 
with  men. 

Arist.  The  supposition  is  unsupported  by  scrip¬ 
ture,  reason  or  experience. 

Yours  &lc. 


Aristarchus. 


LETTER  V. 


Dear  Sin, 

Your  next  objection  is  thus  stated — “  The  impo¬ 
tence  of  mankind  for  which  you  contend,  will  in  fact 
excuse  them  from  blame  ;  and  it  is  idle  to  make  any 
distinctions  in  the  case.  Impotence  is  impotence,  and 
its  effects  are  the  same,  let  the  kind  of  impotence  be 
what  it  may.” 

Is  this,  my  friend,  a  correct  sentiment — one  which 
in  your  cool,  deliberate  judgment  you  can  adopt,  and 
argue  from  as  a  true  principle  ; — that  the  dependence 
of  the  creature  is  opposed  to  his  moral  agency,  and 
exempts  him  from  blame  ? — and  is  it  indeed  so  that  the 
want  of  natural  power,  and  the  want  of  a  moral  dispo¬ 
sition,  are  urnlistinguishable,  either  in  their  nature  or 
effects?  In  this  point  we  are  far  from  seeing  alike, — 
we  are  widely  disagreed  ; — but  let  us  fairly  examine  it. 

Supposing  a  man  at  noon  day,  should  close  his  eyes 
and  exclaim,  blindness  is  blindness,  whether  a  man 
cannot  see  or  will  not  see; — whether  he  have  a  cata¬ 
ract,  or  an  artificial  bandage  over  his  sight,  and  there 
is  no  distinction  to  be  made,  the  case  is  the  same  and 
the  consequences  are  the  same — the  man  is  in  the  dark, 
and  it  is  impossible  for  him  to  see  ; — would  you  not 
think  him  to  be  in  sport  or  deranged  in  his  intellects  ? 
Children  see  the  distinction  between  natural  and  moral 
impotence,  and  practice  upon  it — indeed  black  and 
white  are  not  more  distinguishable.  The  difference  is 
as  great  as  this — that,  the  more  we  have  of  moral  im¬ 
potence,  the  more  we  have  of  blame — and  the  more  we 
have  of  natural  impotence,  the  less  we  are  to  blame, 
and  the  less  deserving  of  punishment.  And  surely  it 
requires  no  uncommon  discernment  to  see  the  differ¬ 
ence  between  cannot  and  will  not. 

To  be  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins  is  the  highest 
expression  of  guilt — bespeaks  a  heart  wholly  devoted 


58 


to  the  service  of  satan,  and  under  the  reigning  power 
of  sin.  We  are  guilty  in  proportion  as  we  are  deprav¬ 
ed,  unless  some  reasonable  and  sufficient  excuse  can 
be  given,  why  we  should  not  love  God  with  all  our 
heart.  Our  spiritual  death  is  punishable.  Its  proper 
wages,  and  just  demerit,  is  eternal  death.  The  moral 
impotency  of  mankind  consists  in  an  utter  disaffection 
and  enmity  of  heart,  towards  the  character  and  govern¬ 
ment  of  God,  and  a  life  of  continued  disobedience  to 
his  lawcl  ; — and  to  argue  that  sin  is  less  sinful  because 
it  is  sin,  would  be  a  mode  of  reasoning  as  novel  as  it 
is  irrational. 

Philemon.  But  it  cannot  be  true  as  you  have  as¬ 
serted,  that  the  regeneration  of  the  sinner  is  immedi¬ 
ately,  instantaneously  and  irresjstably  effected 
by  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

As  you  advance  no  argument  in  support  of  your  as¬ 
sertion,  I  ask,  why  not  ?  Where  is  the  inconsistency  ? 
We  will  take  these  ideas  separately  and  examine  them, 
and  remember  that  we  want  proofs  rather  than  opin¬ 
ions.  And, 

1.  Whether  the  regeneration  of  the  sinner  be  not 
effected  by  the  immediate  operation  of  the  Spirit  ? 

By  regeneration  understand  me  invariably  to  mean, 
change  of  heart ,  or  what  is  called  in  scripture,  being 
born  of  God.  And  here  is  an  important  distinction  to 
be  taken  into  view,  which  many  do  not  make — and 
that  is,  between  regeneration  and  conversion.  The 
first  I  consider  as  purely  the  act  of  God  in  removing 
the  veil  of  blindness, — or  in  making  the  evil  tree  good 
— or  in  changing  the  heart ; — in  which,  abstractly  con¬ 
sidered,  the  creature  is  no  more  active,  than  in  his  ori¬ 
ginal  creation.  The  latter  is  the  act  of  the  creature 
in  turning  to  God.  Conversion  means  turning.  It  is 
the  exercise  of  the  renewed  mind. 

Now  by  immediate  with  respect  to  regeneration,  I 
mean  to  exclude  not  only  the  efficacy  but  the  instru¬ 
mentality  of  means.  It  is  not  denied  that  God  uses 
many  and  various  means  in  the  awakening  and  convic¬ 
tion  of  the  sinner,  and  preparing  his  mind  for  regene¬ 
rating  grace.  A^et  these  have  efficacy  only  by  the  ac¬ 
companying  power  of  God.  But  in  the  act  of  regen- 


59 


eration,  immediate  power  is  exerted.  It  is  the  work 
of  God  and  peculiarly  his  own.  It  is  an  impartation 
of  the  divine  nature  to  the  soul,  effected  by  an  almigh¬ 
ty  fiat — by  an  immediate  touch  of  the  finger  of  Jeho¬ 
vah,  by  which  the  soul  is  transformed  into  the  divine 
image.  It  is  compared  by  the  apostle  to  that  imme¬ 
diate  display  of  the  divine  power  in  the  creation  of  the 
natural  world,  when  God  said  “  let  there  be  light  and 
there  was  light” — “  for  God  who  commanded  the  light 
to  shine  out  of  darkness,  hath  shined  in  our  hearts  to 
give  the  light  of  the  knowledge  of  the  glory  of  God  in 
the  face  of  Jesus  Christ.’7  Regeneration  is  frequent¬ 
ly  described  as  a  new  creation,  and  as  a  spiritual  res¬ 
urrection — these  are  works  of  God  effected  by  the  di¬ 
rect  act  of  omnipotence,  and  necessarily  exclude  the 
efficacy  of  means  and  instruments.  By  what  means 
did  God  create  the  world?  “  He  commanded  and  it 
stood  fast” — he  said,  “  let  there  be  light  and  there  was 
light.” — By  what  instrumentality  was  Christ  raised 
from  the  dead  ?  It  is  ascribed  by  the  apostle  to  the 
mighty  power  of  God  ;  and  he  tells  the  Ephesian 
Christians,  that  they  were  quickened  to  spiritual  life, 
when  they  were  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins  by  the 
same  power.  “And  what  is  the  exceeding  greatness 
of  his  power  to  us-ward  who  believe,  according  to  the 
working  of  his  mighty  power,  which  he  wrought  in 
Christ,  when  he  raised  him  from  the  dead.”  Ephe¬ 
sians  i.  19,  20.  By  what  cause,  were  the  dead  raised 
in  Ezekiel’s  vision  of  the  valley  of  dry  bones  ?  Was 
the  effect  produced  by  his  prophesying  or  something 
else  ?  Means  here,  though  appointed  and  used  had  no 
efficacy  ;  the  power  of  God  alone  effected  the  end. 

Against  this  view  of  the  immediate  power  of  God  in 
regeneration,  that  passage  in  James  i.  18,  is  brought 
and  by  some  much  relied  on  as  proof  that  regenera¬ 
tion  is  effected  by  means — “  Of  his  own  will  begat  he 
us  with  the  word  of  truth but  this  must  be  construed 
according  to  the  analogy  of  faith,  and  in  accordance 
with  other  passages,  and  not  set  in  opposition  to  the 
whole  stream  of  scripture  instruction  on  the  subject. 
It  cannot  respect  the  particular  creative  act  of  regene¬ 
ration,  which  is  an  act  of  physical,  almighty  power — 


60 


biit  refers  to  the  whole  process  of  sanctification,  which 
is  ascribed  to  the  instrumentality  of  the  word,  because 
that  is  appointed  of  God,  as  the  grand  means  of  salva¬ 
tion.  The  change  of  the  heart  is  indeed  a  moral  ef¬ 
fect,  but  it  can  be  produced  only  by  a  physical  cause. 
“  Thy  people  shall  be  willing  in  the  day  of  thy  power.” 
Psalms  cx.  3.  “  We  have  this  treasure  in  earthen  ves¬ 

sels,  that  the  excellency  of  the  power  may  be  of  God 
and  not  of  us.’  2  Cor.  iv.  7.  The  scriptures  in  innu¬ 
merable  instances,  describe  this  change  of  heart  in 
terms  peculiarly  expressive  of  the  appropriate  effects 
of  divine  power.  If,  therefore,  it  be  an  operation  of 
divine  power,  communicating  a  participation  of  the 
divine  nature,  and  without  the  efficacy  of  means,  as  I 
think,  both  scripture  and  reason  teach,  it  must  be  an 
immediate  effect. 

2.  This  change  is  instantaneous.  If  the  former  be 
true,  this  will  follow  of  course  ;  for  whatever  is  effect¬ 
ed  without  means  must  be  instantaneous.  “  God  said 
let  there  be  light,  and  there  was  light.”  It  was  an  in¬ 
stantaneous  effect. 

Furthermore, — it  is  impossible  in  the  nature  of 
things,  that  regeneration  should  not  be  instantaneous. 
Every  one  must  be  agreed  in  this,  that  there  is  no  mid¬ 
dle  character  among-  moral  agents,  or  one  that  is  nei- 
t he r  sinful  nor  holy — and  that  moral  exercises  consti¬ 
tute  moral  character.  Christ  saith,  u  lie  that  is  not 
with  me  is  against  me,  and  he  that  gathereth  not  with 
me  scattereth  abroad.”  Of  necessity  a  man  is  either 
holy  or  unholy — penitent  or  impenitent;  and  there 
must  be  a  certain  time  when  the  penitent  sinner  ceas¬ 
ed  to  be  impenitent ; — is  it  not  then  certain,  that  the 
moment  he  ceases  to  be  impenitent  he  becomes  a  peni¬ 
tent  ;  and  the  last  impenitent  exercise  is  instantly  fol¬ 
lowed  by  the  first  exercise  of  repentance  ?  Otherwise, 
there  must  be  a  space  of  time,  longer  or  shorter,  in 
which  the  man  is  neither  holy  nor  unholy,  penitent 
nor  impenitent,  dead  nor  alive  ; — this  is  impossible 
unless  he  should  cease  to  be  a  moral  agent.  There¬ 
fore  the  change  of  regeneration  is  and  must  be  instan¬ 
taneous. 

3.  It  is  effected  by  a \\  irresistible  operation  of  the 


61 


Spirit  of  God.  If  the  change  be  immediate  and  instan¬ 
taneous,  it  must  be  by  an  irresistible  energy — for  until 
the  sinner  is  conquered,  he  does  nothing  but  resist. 
Said  Stephen  to  the  persecuting  Jews,  “  Yjs  stiff-neck¬ 
ed  and  uncircumcised  in  heart  and  ears,  ye  do  always 
resist  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  your  fathers  did,  so  do  ye.” 
Every  exercise  of  the  impenitent  heart  is  in  opposition 
to  God,  and  the  strivings  of  his  Spirit;  and  he  is  fully 
bent  upon  resistance.  “  The  carnal  mind  is  enmity 
against  God,  and  is  not  subject  to  his  law,  nor  indeed 
can  be” — he  is  therefore  as  obstinately  opposed  to  the 
strivings  of  the  Spirit,  and  as  long  as  he  retains  that 
temper,  he  can  and  will  resist.  Unless,  therefore,  a 
power  is  exerted  sufficient  to  overcome  that  resistance, 
or,  in  other  words,  which  is  irresistible ,  the  sinner 
never  will  submit.  No  self  determining  power  of  the 
will,  no  means,  motives  or  persuasion,  will  effect  a 
change  of  nature,  or  produce  from  the  carnal  heart, 
the  fruits  of  righteousness : — the  bramble  will  never 
yield  grapes,  nor  the  thistle,  figs. 

This  irresistible  power,  however,  does  not  militate 
in  the  least  with  the  freedom  cff  the  will — for  the  sub¬ 
mission  of  the  creature,  is  a  free  voluntary  exercise  of 
the  will.  A  forced  submission  against  his  will,  is  an 
inconsistency — would  be  no  submission.  The  power 
of  God  does  not  conquer  the  sinner  against  his  will, 
but  in  the  very  article  of  making  him  willing  ; — does 
not  by  force  wrest  the  sword  out  of  his  hand,  as  in  the 
case  of  a  captured  and  disarmed  enemy,  but  by  chang¬ 
ing  the  temper  of  his  heart,  dispose  him  freely  to  sur¬ 
render  it,  and  cheerfully  submit.  All  this  is  taught  in 
that  memorable  passage  of  scripture — “  Thy  people 
shall  be  willing  in  the  day  of  thy  power.”  Psalms 
cx.  3. 

From  the  foregoing  it  is  further  inferred,  that  the 
grace  of  regeneration  is  sovereign  and  unsought  grace. 
The  sinner  when  brought  from  the  state  of  nature  into 
the  state  of  grace,  will  need  but  his  own  experience 
and  feelings  to  convince  him,  that  he  has  now  found 
what  he  never  before  sought  after  or  desired  ;  and  that 
he  never  prayed  for  it,  before  he  had  it.  “  I  am  found 

6 


62 


of  them,  saith  God,  that  sought  me  not.”  Isaiah 
Ixv.  1. 

The  contrary  supposition  would  involve  a  contradic¬ 
tion  ;  for  uivtil  a  man  is  born  again,  he  is  destitute  of 
any  love  to'God,  or  desires  after  him.  The  constant 
language  of  his  heart  towards  God  is— depart  from 
me  for  I  desire  not  the  knowledge  of  thy  ways.”  Job 
xxi.  14.  The  natural  man  receiveth  not  the  things  of 
the  Spirit  of  God,  for  they  are  foolishness  to  him.” 
1  Cor .  ii.  14*  There  is  not  one  duty  done  by  the  un- 
reg’enerale.  They  do  nothing  with  a  view  to  God’s 
glory— but  every  thought  of  their  heart  is  in  opposi¬ 
tion  to  him.  Tor  this  very  reason,  they  that  are  in 
the  flesh  cannot  please  God  ; — they  do  nothing  but 
provoke  him.  This  could  not  be,  did  they  exercise 
any  love,  or  render  any  obedience.  God  is  not  dis¬ 
pleased  with  his  creatures,  for  doing  what  he  com¬ 
mands  them.  Nothing  but  disobedience  excites  the 
divine  anger. 

Now  the  question  being  put,  whether  the  natural 
man,  antecedent  to  regeneration,  has  any  true  desires 
after  holiness,  or  a  change  of  heart, — it  comes  simply 
to  this — whether  the  same  heart  will  not  have  the  same 
kind  of  moral  exercises? — Our  Saviour  has  answered 
the  question, — A  corrupt  tree  cannot  bring  forth  good 
fruit.”  Matthew  vii.  18.  It  comes  to  this,  I  say,  be¬ 
cause  desires  after  grace,  are  exercises  of  grace — de¬ 
sires  after  holiness  are  holy  exercises — therefore,  it 
follows  that  regeneration  is  an  unsought  grace  ;  the 
natural  man  has  no  desires  after  it ; — it  is  the  object  of 
his  aversion  and  not  of  his  choice  ;  and  what  a  man 
hath,  he  will  not  seek  to  obtain,  and  cannot  be  said  to 
desire. 

There  may  indeed  be  an  indirect  desire  after  grace, 
which  at  the  same  time  implies  a  direct  aversion  to  it. 
As  a  sick  man  may  take  down  the  most  nauseous  por¬ 
tion  for  the  restoration  of  health — or  a  man  with  a 
uangreened  limb  may  desire  to  have  it  amputated,  in 
order  to  save  his  life  '.—this  is  the  direct  object  of  his 
desire-— the  loss  of  his  limb,  he  views  with  aversion. 
In  this  manner  sinners  may  wish  for  holiness,  when 
convinced  that  it  is  the  only  means  of  their  escaping 


63 


eternal  misery.  And  so  might  the  devils.  They  as 
earnestly  desire  happiness,  or  exemption  from  punish¬ 
ment  as  impenitent  men. 

From  the  whole  subject  then  we  may  draw  this  im¬ 
portant  general  inference,  that  human  dependence  and 
free  agency — the  accountability  of  the  sinner,  and  the 
renewing  and  efficacious  power  of  the  grace  of  God, 
are  gospel  truths  and  perfectly  consistent  with  each 
other.  They  form  the  only  consistent  plan  of  gospel 
doctrine — the  only  true  system  of  moral  philosophy. 
By  the  instruction  and  authority  of  holy  scripture  these 
points  are  as  clear  to  the  understanding  of  the  ration¬ 
al  mind,  and  as  certain  to  the  spiritual  discernment  of 
the  experienced  Christian,  as  any  of  the  visible  objects 
of  nature.  All  our  darkness  and  doubts  on  this  sub-, 
ject,  arise  from  our  own  proud  reasonings  upon  the 
deep  things  of  God — an  unwillingness  to  subject  our 
faith  to  the  wisdom  and  authority  of  God’s  word. 

Man  is  a  dependent  and  yet  an  accountable  creature 
— a  free  agent,  and  yet  God  a  holy  Sovereign,  who 
changes  the  heart  of  the  sinner  by  his  own  immediate 
and  almighty  power.  But  how  can  these  things  be  ! 
the  unbelieving  heart  replies — diow  can  God  work  in 
us  both  to  will  and  to  do  of  his  own  good  pleasure, 
and  yet  we  be  perfectly  free  ?  How  can  we  be  accoun¬ 
table,  if  we  are  wholly  dependent?  I  cannot  see  their 
consistency  ?  Aye  truly — how  can  it  be  ? — how  strange 
that  the  pitcher  cannot  contain  all  the  waters  of  the 
ocean — or  the  creature  of  a  day  comprehend  the  in¬ 
habitant  of  eternity.  Is  it  then  a  reasonable  objection 
because  the  limited  powers  of  a  finite  mind  are  unable 
to  fathom,  what  is  incomprehensible  to  all  creatures, 
the  mode  of  the  divine  operation,  or  how  God  works 
in  us  to  will  and  to  do,  and  changes  the  sinner’s  heart 
by  his  own  almighty  power,  and  yet  the  sinner  act  his 
own  free  choice  and  voluntarily  turns  to  God  in  con¬ 
version  ?  Thence  shall  we  dare,  in  the  pride  of  our 
own  vain  philosophy,  to  limit  the  Holy  One,  and  say, 
that  God  cannot  prevent  or  destroy  sin  without  des¬ 
troying  our  moral  agency  ?  Is  this  honorary  to  God — 
of  whom,  and  through  whom  and  to  whom  are  all 
things  ?  Is  it  giving  him  those  high  prerogatives  of 


64 


sovereignty  and  supreme  dominion  which  he  claims  in 
his  word  ?  Shall  we  effeet  to  be  wiser  than  God,  and 
bring  his  word  to  the  bar  of  human  reason  ?  The  dec¬ 
laration  of  Christ  to  Nicodemilt,  is  a  standing  reproof 
to  the  cavilling  pride  of  human  wisdom — “  The  wind 
bloweth  where  it  listeth — thou  hearest  the  sound  there¬ 
of,  but  canst  not  tell  whence  it  cometh  and  whither  it 
goeth — so  is  every  one  that  is  born  of  the  Spirit.” 

It  is  evident  that  the  heart  must  first  be  changed  be¬ 
fore  there  can  be  any  gracious  exercises,  and  this 
change  is  wrought  by  the  power  of  God.  It  is  not  in 
men  or  means  to  effect  it.  God  claims  it  as  his  own 
prerogative  to  change  the  heart.  Paul’s  experience 
is  in  point — “  I  was  alive  without  the  law  once  ;  but 
when  the  commandment  come, sin  revived,  and  I  died. 
He  clearly  saw  the  sinfulness  of  his  heart — his  desert 
of  eternal  death,  and  died  to  every  selfish  hope  in  his 
own  strength.  Reconciliation  to  God  is  not  effected 
by  conviction.  It  is  not  in  the  nature  of  terror  and 
alarm  to  change  the  heart.  There  are  many  instan¬ 
ces  of  apostacy  from  the  greatest  awakenings  and  ter¬ 
rors.  Corruptions  for  a  time  were  restrained  by  fear, 
and  the  remonstrances  of  conscience — but  when  these 
restraints  are  broken,  they  will  rage  with  the  more  vio¬ 
lence.  A  lion  may  be  chained  but  he  is  a  lion  still — 
lose  him  and  he  will  again  act  his  ferocious  nature. 
It  is  the  special  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  that  effects 
a  gracious  change  of  the  heart,  and  lays  a  foundation 
for  true  humility  in  the  soul.  It  is  the  common  way 
of  obtaining  false  hopes,  to  mistake  conviction  for  con¬ 
version,  and  legal  fears  for  evangelical  repentance. 
Such  will  gradually  return  to  their  sins,  and  though 
they  have  lost  their  religion  still  keep  their  hopes  and 
in  this  way  become  finished  hypocrites. 

But  the  doctrine  of  the  Spirit’s  special  influence  in 
regeneration  as  the  great  and  only  and  almighty  agent, 
is  beginning  to  be  discarded  and  laid  aside,  and  modifi¬ 
ed  into  the  influence  of  mere  persuasion.  All  idea  of 
creative,  supernatural,  physical  power  is  scouted  and 
allowed  no  place  ;  while  a  self  determining  power  of 
the  human  will  is  substituted,  and  the  sinner  is  direct¬ 
ed  and  exhorted  to  change  his  own  heart,  and  told  that 


65 

he  is  as  able  to  do  it,  as  to  perform  any  of  the  most 
common  actions  of  life.  I  have  been  shocked,  indeed, 
to  hear,  and  that  too  from  the  pulpit,  such  language  as 
the  following  addressed  to  awakened  sinners. 

I  now  leave  you ,  where  God  leaves  you.  He  only 
uses  'persuasion  with  shiners ,  and  resorts  to  no  com¬ 
pulsion.  God  has  done  all  that  for  you  which  he  ev¬ 
er  will  do  or  can  do ; — you  are  convicted  of  sin  and  you 
are  now  left  to  your  own  choice  and,  agency  to  convert 
yourself  or  not. 

Is  this  the  true  gospel  doctrine — the  faith  once  de¬ 
livered  to  the  saints— the  instruction  proper  to  be  giv¬ 
en  to  the  awakened,  and  inquiring  sinner  ?  How  lar 
does  it  differ  from  the  sentiment  of  Young? 

bleaven  bat  persuades — almighty  man  decrees 

This  doctrine  must  tend  either  to  sink  the  sinner  in 
total  despair — or  in  his  imagined  self  sufficiency,  to 
build  him  up  in  a  self  righteous  hope  ; — in  either  case 
alike  fatal  to  the  soul.  For  certain  it  is,  if  God  does 
no  more  for  the  sinner  than  to  convict  him  of  sin,  he 
will  never  be  converted,  never  be  born  ot  God.  Il 
God  leave  the  sinner  in  the  bond  of  iniquity- — it  is  not 
his  own  strength  that  will  break  his  fetters — he  must 
forever  remain  in  the  gall  of  bitterness,  and  his  perdi¬ 
tion  is  sealed. 

The  awakened  and  convicted  sinner  while  and  as 
long  as  he  attempts  to  convert  himself,  will  continue 
under  the  power  and  condemnation  of  sin.  He  must  be 
slain  by  the  law — brought  to  feel  and  know  that  he  is 
not  only  guilty  and  condemned,  but  ruined  and  help¬ 
less,  before  he  will  yield  and  consent  to  be  helped  by 
Christ.  Self  confidence,  or  a  trust  in  his  own  strength, 
is  the  only  bar  in  the  way  of  his  coming  to  Christ. 
Only  let  this  be  removed,  and  he  looks  to  Christ  and 
receives  help  and  healing  from  him.  The  experienced 
Christian  will  never  call  in  question  the  office  work 
of  the  Holy  Spirit — but  will  readily  and  thankfully  as¬ 
cribe  his  change  of  heart  wholly  to  him,  and  give  God 
all  the  glory  : — But  show  me  the  man  who  professes 
to  have  converted  himself,  and  I  will  show  you  a  self 
deceived  hypocrite.  The  self  converted  sinner  must 

6  * 


1 


66 


be  converted  again,  or  perish  forever.  “  Not  by 
might,  nor  by  power,  but  by  my  Spirit,  saith  the 
Lord.”  God  will  not  sacrifice  the  glory  of  his  grace 
to  the  proud  aspiring  pretensions  of  men — but  in  every 
genuine  revival  of  religion,  he  will  make  it  fully  man¬ 
ifest  that,  the  work  is  his  and  not  man’s,  and  the  ex¬ 
cellency  of  the  power  exclusively  his  own.  This  evi¬ 
dence  will  be  exhibited  in  many  ways.  I  will  men¬ 
tion  but  one,  and  that  where  human  agency  could  not 
possibly  have  had  any  concern.  Who  has  not  either 
known  or  heard  of  instances  of  unquestionable  conver¬ 
sion,  of  the  following  description  :  An  awakened  sin¬ 
ner  under  the  distress  of  conviction,  and  borne  down 
and  overcome  by  the  agonies  of  a  wounded  spirit, 
sinks  to  sleep  at  night,  and  awakes  in  the  morning  a 
new  creature — finds  himself  in  the  temper  of  submis¬ 
sion,  and  his  heart  going  forth  to  Christ  in  the  sweet 
exercises  of  faith  and  love.  Now  I  ask  who  has  effect¬ 
ed  this  alteration  in  him  ?  It  is  a  change  most  surprising 
to  himself,  and  to  all  around  him.  Is  this  a  self 
wrought  change?  Was  it  accomplished  by  means  used, 
or  the  influence  of  moral  suasion  applied  ?  Did  he 
change  his  own  heart  while  asleep — in  a  state  of  total 
inaction,  and  even  unconscious  of  his  own  existence  ? 
But  enough — I  will  not  any  further  protract  the  dis¬ 
cussion.  I  hear  you,  Sir,  please  to  offer  what  you 
have  further  to  object. 

“  Your  doctrine  is  repugnant,  as  I  think,  to  the  di¬ 
rections  of  God’s  word,  particularly  in  Isaiah  lv.  6, 
and  Matthew  vii.  7,  8.  “  Seek  ye  the  Lord  while  he 

may  be  found,  call  upon  him  while  he  is  near.  Ask 
and  it  shall  be  given  you,  seek  and  ye  shall  find,  knock 
and  it  shall  be  opened  unto  you — for  every  one  that 
asketh  receiveth,  and  he  that  seeketh  findeth,  and  to 
him  that  knocketh,  it  shall  be  opened.”  But  how  is 
this  consistent  with  the  doctrine  you  have  advanced  ? 
H  ere  the  Scriptures  expressly  direct  us  to  seek  the 
Lord,  and  annex  a  promise  as  expressly  to  the  per¬ 
formance  of  the  duty.  “  Ask  and  it  shall  be  given 
you — seek  and  ye  shall  find,  &c.”  Yet  in  the  face  of 
all  this,  you  say,  that  regeneration  is  an  unsought 
grace.” 


67 


This  objection  is  plausible  and  popular  ;  but  we  will 
examine  its  force,  by  comparing  scripture  with  scrip¬ 
ture,  and  applying  necessary  and  just  conclusions  reg¬ 
ularly  drawn  from  established  first  principles.  In  the 
first  place,  it  will  not  be  begging  an  argument,  but  as¬ 
serting  a  doctrine  in  which  Christians  of  all  denomina¬ 
tions  are  agreed,  that  the  divine  law  enjoins  a  perfect, 
sinless  obedience — requiring  supreme  love  to  God, 
and  benevolent  affection  to  ali  moral  beings  ; — that, 
this  is  the  rule  of  duty,  and  the  test  of  moral  character. 
The  least  deviation  from  this  perfect  law,  involves  the 
guilt  of  positive  transgression.  The  law  condemns 
for  every  offence.  I  infer  therefore,  that  impenitent 
sinners,  whose  hearts  are  enmity,  do  no  duty  in  the 
sight  of  God — render  no  obedience  to  any  of  his  com¬ 
mands.  This  is  expressly  declared  in  his  word. 

Furthermore,  I  infer,  and  hesitate  not  to  assert, 
that  there  is  not  in  all  the  book  of  God,  a  single  duty 
enjoined  upon  impenitent  sinners  to  do,  while  such. 
This  truth,  to  the  attentive  mind  must  appear  very 
clearly.  Supreme  love  to  God  is  the  spirit  of  his  law 
and  of  every  part  of  it — but  impenitent  sinners  are  at 
enmity  with  God,  and  not  subject  to  his  law.  “  "With¬ 
out  faith  it  is  impossible  to  please  God — but  impeni¬ 
tent  sinners  have  no  faith — for  “faith  worketh  by 
love.” 

God,  indeed,  in  every  part  of  his  word,  commands 
sinners  to  repent,  and  to  repent  immediately — he  does 
not  therefore  allow  them  to  live  longer  impenitent, 
and  not  only  so,  but  directs  them  to  perform  certain 
duties  in  that  state,  before  they  proceed  to  the  dutyr  of 
repentance.  If  he  does,  I  beg  to  be  informed,  what  is 
the  essential  difference  of  moral  character,  or  mark  of 
distinction  between  the  regenerate  and  the  unregene¬ 
rate  sinner  ?  If  obedience  to  God  be  not  the  distin¬ 
guishing  mark  of  his  children,  I  see  no  difference  of 
moral  character  between  them  and  the  impenitent,  or 
any  propriety  in  calling  the  saints  a  peculiar  people, 
zealous  of  good  works.  Titus  ii.  14. 

But,  Sir,  you  bring  two  memorable  passages  of  scrip¬ 
ture  to  prove  and  establish  the  point,  that  impenitent 
sinners  may  and  do,  while  such,  render  obedience  to 


6£ 

the  command  of  God,  and  seek  after  holiness  or  regen¬ 
erating-  grace.  We  will  attend  to  them  distinctly. 

Seek  ye  the  Lord  while  he  may  be  found — call 
upon  him  while  he  is  near.” 

Compare  this  with  another  passage,  Psal?7is  x.  4, 
and  we  can  better  determine  the  propriety  and  force  of 
its  application.  “  The  wicked,  through  the  pride  of 
his  countenance  will  not  seek  after  God.”  By  the 
term  wicked,  the  impenitent  sinner  is  undoubtedly 
meant  : — Comparing  these  passages  together,  must 
convince  us,  that  the  seeking  commanded  in  the  for¬ 
mer,  is  something  which  the  impenitent  sinner  never 
performs — and  that  it  is  no  other  than  true  repent¬ 
ance  ;  the  cry  of  a  humble  broken  heart.  This  there¬ 
fore,  my  friend,  goes  to  establish  the  point,  which  you 
brought  it  to  disprove,  viz.  that  regeneration  is  an  un¬ 
sought  grace. 

W  e  will  now  look  at  the  passage  in  Matthew ,  and  see 
if  it  be  not  parallel.  Here  is  an  express  promise  an¬ 
nexed  to  obedience  ;  and  if  the  duty  enjoined  be  con¬ 
sistent  with  a  state  of  impenitence,  then  it  will  estab¬ 
lish  the  point,  that  impenitent  sinners  are  required  to 
do  duty  while  such ,  and  do  in  fact  seek  after  regenera- 
ting  grace. 

“  Ask  and  it  shall  be  given  you — seek  and  ye  shall 
find,  knock  and  it  shall  be  opened  unto  you.” 

Here  is  a  duty  enjoined,  with  a  promise  annexed, 
and  obedience  ensures  the  blessing.  If  then  impeni¬ 
tent  sinners  do  ask  according  to  this  direction,  they 
will  certainly  receive,  for  the  divine  truth  is  pledged. 
But  we  read,  James  4.  3,  “Ye  ask  and  receive  not.” 
How-  can  this  be,  if  the  asking  of  the  unregenerate  be 
certainly  connected  with  their  receiving  ?  How  is  it 
consistent  with  the  other  passage,  “  ask  and  ye  shall 
receive .”  The  apostle  solves  the  difficulty  in  the  same 
verse, — assigns  the  reason,  and  shows  the  consistency 
sought — “  because  ye  ask  amiss,  that  ye  may  consume 
it  upon  your  lusts.”  They  asked  with  selfish  desire  •, 
and  this  is  the  asking  of  regenerate  sinners  invariably, 
and  therefore  cannot  be  the  asking  which  the  Saviour 
enjoins.  That  asking  and  seeking  which  by  the  di¬ 
vine  promise  is  connected  with  receiving  and  finding, 


69 


I  thence  conclude  must  be  a  gracious  asking,  a  peni¬ 
tent  seeking — flowing  from  supreme  love  to  God  and 
regard  to  his  glory  : — but  the  impenitent  heart  is  alto¬ 
gether  selfish.  If  he  ask  any  thing  of  God,  it  is  inva¬ 
riably,  that  he  may  consume  it  upon  his  lusts. 

Does  not  this  view  of  the  subject,  my  friend,  remove 
your  difficulty,  and  lead  you  to  see  that  regeneration 
is  an  unsought  grace — that  the  sinner  never  in  reality 
sought  for  it  before  he  found  it — never  desired  it,  nor 
prayed  for  it  before  he  received  it  ? — I  regret,  howev¬ 
er  to  find  by  your  next  objection,  that  you  are  not  yet 
convinced.  You  thus  rejoin  : 

“  What  propriety,  then,  can  there  be  in  the  com¬ 
mand — that  the  sinner  should  be  required  to  seek  for 
what  he  has  already  found,  and  that  too  as  the  con¬ 
dition  and  necessary  means  of  his  finding  ?  This  is  in¬ 
verting  the  natural  order  of  things  ; — for,  instead  of 
seeking  and  finding,  it  is  finding  and  seeking — first  en¬ 
tering,  and  then  knocking  for  admittance.” 

This  difficulty  is  only  in  appearance.  It  arises  from 
a  mistaken  view  o,f  the  subject,  and  from  the  want  of 
proper  distinctions.  It  is  arguing  from  right  to  fact— - 
irom  actual  duty  to  actual  performance  ;  and  that  be¬ 
cause  God  does  command  the  sinner  to  seek,  that  there¬ 
fore  he  can  and  may  seek  with  an  impenitent  heart, 
and  comply  with  the  command  in  an  act  of  disobedi¬ 
ence  to  it.  But  this  is  begging  the  point  in  controver¬ 
sy,  and  begging  what  no  man  in  his  reason  can  grant. 
It  lies  upon  you,  Sir,  to  establish  this  point,  by  prop¬ 
er  proof,  or  else  agree  to  relinquish  it. 

There  is  a  clear  distinction  between  repentance  and 
pardon  ;  and  it  is  only  from  confounding  this  distinc¬ 
tion  that  your  difficulty  arises.  I  acknowledge  there 
is  an  inseparable  connexion  between  them  ;  yet  they 
are  perfectly  distinct.  Repentance  is  the  act  of  the 
creature — pardon,  the  act  of  God.  Repentance  is  the 
seeking — pardon,  the  thing  sought,  and  the  thing 
found.  Repentance  is  the  necessary  means  of  obtain¬ 
ing  pardon — but  pardon  is  not  the  necessary  conse¬ 
quence  of  repentance.  It  is  indeed  a  certain  conse¬ 
quence,  because  God  has  promised  pardon  to  the  peni¬ 
tent  ;  but  repentance  does  not  render  the  creature  less 
guilty,  or  less  deserving  of  punishment ;  and  therefore 


aside  from  the  divine  promise,  God  would  be  under  no 
obligation  to  pardon  the  penitent,  but  might  consist¬ 
ently  with  justice,  punish  him.  Repentance,  in  the 
order  of  nature,  and  according  to  the  divine  establish¬ 
ment,  precedes  pardon.  The  sinner  first  repents,  and 
then  is  pardoned.-  “  Me  that  confesseth  and  forsak- 
eth  his  sins  (which  is  repenting)  shall  find  mercy.’’ 
This  shows  that  repentance  and  pardon  are  distinct 
things — that  the  former  precedes  the  latter — that  re¬ 
pentance  is  seeking,  and  pardon  the  thing  found. 

Now  if  you  should  still  insist,  that  repentance  is  the 
thing  sought,  I  might  turn  your  own  objection  upon 
you  in  its  full  force — Why  do  you  seek  what  you  have 
already  found ,  and  that  as  a  necessary  means  of  your 
finding  ?  for  seeking  repentance  is  an  exercise  of  re¬ 
pentance — it  is  repentance  itself.  You  are  already  in 
- — why  then  continue  knocking  for  admittance  ? 

The  objection  will  be  found  in  reality  to  lie  against 
the  objector.  But  if  repentance  be  the  thing  signified 
and  enjoined  by  the  word  seekings  then  there  is  the 
utmost  propriety  and  consistency  in  the  command, 
and  the  encouragement  annexed  is  most  gracious — the 
blessing  promised  worthy  of  a  God  of  infinite  mercy 
to  bestow.  Seek  and  ye  shall  find — repent  and  be  par¬ 
doned — believe  and  be  saved.  And  this  we  shall  find 
most  clearly  the  instruction  of  God’s  word,  by  only 
taking  that  passage  in  Isaiah  which  has  been  quoted,, 
and  reading  it  in  connection  with  the  verse  immedi- 
ately  following.  “  Seek  ye  the  Lord  while  he  may 
be  found — call  upon  him  while  he  is  near.  Let  the 
wicked  forsake  his  way  and  the  unrighteous  man  his 
thoughts,  and  let  him  return  unto  the  Lord,  and  he 
will  have  mercy  upon  him,  and  to  our  God  for  he  will 
abundantly  pardon.”  Here  the  latter  verse  explains 
the  duty  of  seeking  enjoined  in  the  former,  to  signify 
repentance — this  is  forsaking  sin,  and  turning  unto  the 
Lord  ;  and  the  promised  blessing  connected  with  such 
seeking  is  God’s  mercy,  and  abundant  pardon.  And 
the  passage  in  Matthew  7th,  is  exactly  parallel.  They 
both  speak  the  same  thing,  direct  to  the  same  duty,  and 
promise  the  same  blessing. 

Yours,  &c, 

Aristarchus, 


LETTER  VI. 


Dear  Sir, 

Let  us  be  candid,  impartial  and  persevering  in  ottr 
search  arter  truth.  It  is  a  treasure  which,  when  found, 
Will  abundantly  reward  our  pains.  Your  next  ob¬ 
jection  to  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  divine  sovereign¬ 
ty,  is  one  that  has  long  been  made,  and  as  often  been 
answered — and  yet  the  objection  continues  to  be  made, 
and  the  answer  must  be  repeated. 

“  This  doctrine  destroys  the  free  agency  of  the  crea¬ 
ture  and  makes  us  mere  machines.” 

Directly  the  contrary,  I  trust  can  be  made  to  appear, 
if  language  be  used  with  propriety,  and  words  be 
taken  in  the  sense  which  the  common  consent  and  usage 
of  mankind  have  annexed  to  them. — A  misunderstand¬ 
ing  of  words  is  often  the  occasion  of  dispute  about 
things.  In  order  therefore  to  examine  the  merits  of  the 
present  objection,  we  will  begin  by  defining  terms  ; — 
and  first  inquire,  what  is  meant  b y  free  agency  and  a 
machine.  These  are  contrasts,  and  whatever  essential 
property  is  to  be  ascribed  to  the  one,  must  be  denied 
of  the  other. 

The  ground  of  your  objection  is,  that  free  agency  is 
destroyed  by  the  doctrine  of  absolute  dependence,  and 
as  a  necessary  consequence,  the  man  is  left  but  a  mere 
machine.  If  then  we  can  precisely  determine  the  true 
distinction  between  a  free  agent  and  a  machine,  it  will 
be  easy  to  determine  the  merits  of  the  question. 

The  idea  of  free  agency  is  so  plain  that  it  can  be  de¬ 
fined  only  by  synonimous  terms.  The  word  itself  ex¬ 
presses  its  essential  property.  It  is  the  same  as  spon¬ 
taneous  volition,  or  voluntary  motion,  or  capacity  of 
choice.  The  opposite  of  this,  is  the  essential  proper¬ 
ty  ofja  machine — that  is  involuntary  motion ,  or  incapa¬ 
city  of  choice.  Now  I  ask  whether  absolute  depend¬ 
ence,  or  unsonght  grace  destroys  the  free  agency  of 


n 


the  creature,  or  even  militates  against  its  essential 
property  ?  Whether  the  immediate,  instantaneous,  and 
irresistable  energy  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  regeneration 
makes  the  subject  a  machine ,  or  implies  any  thing  like 
involuntary  motion,  or  incapacity  of  choice.  The 
contrary  of  this,  I  think,  has  been  proved.  It  is  the 
very  thing  designed  and  effected  by  regeneration. 
Conversion  is  an  act  of  the  will,  in  which  the  creature 
puts  forth  his  free,  spontaneous  choice.  It  is  his  vol¬ 
untary  turning  from  sin  to  holiness,  from  Satan  to 
God.  And  certainly  it  is  not  inconsistent  with  free 
agency,  for  a  mutable  creature  to  change  his  affec¬ 
tions,  and  to  love  and  choose  what  he  before  hated 
and  refused.  So  far  from  it,  that  this  is  the  very  ex¬ 
ercise  of  his  free  agency  :  otherwise  it  would  be  im¬ 
possible  for  an  impenitent  sinner  ever  to  exercise  re¬ 
pentance  and  become  a  saint ; — this  implies  an  entire 
change  of  the  moral  affections.  Such  is  the  etymolo¬ 
gical  sense  of  the  word  repentance.  The  literal  sig¬ 
nification  of  the  Greek  word  mctanoia ,  which  we  trans¬ 
late  repentance ,  is  change  of  mind,  or  affection. 

The  consistency  between  divine  agency  and  human 
liberty  we  must  believe,  whether  we  discern  it  or  not, 
for  it  is  the  instruction  of  the  Bible. — “Thy  people 
shall  be  willing  in  the  day  of  thy  power .”  Here  the 
power  of  God  is  declared  to  be  the  effecting  cause — 
and  the  thing  effected,  the  willingness  of  his  people, 
their  voluntary  conversion  or  turning  to  God.  This 
is  according  to  the  given  definition  of  free  agency,  the 
very  thing  constituting  its  essential  property.  There¬ 
fore  the  power  of  God  exercised  upon  the  sinner  in 
regeneration,  does  not  make  him  a  machine — He  does 
not  act  by  an  involuntary  motion — or  contrary  to  his 
choice — or  without  any  choice — but  by  his  free  choice. 
The  passage  does  not  imply  that  God’s  people  should 
be  willing  contrary  to  their  will,  or  whether  they 
were  willing  or  not.  This  would  be  a  nonsensical 
contradiction  in  terms. 

From  what  is  now  proved  it  is  clear,  that  absolute 
dependence  is  perfectly  consistent  with  human  liberty, 
and  may  as  well  belong  to  a  free  agent,  as  to  a  mere 
machine — this  is  not  the  point  in  which  they  differ. 


73 


And  it  is  as  absurd  to  believe  that  a  creature  origin¬ 
ates  his  own  volitions  and  desires,  as  that  he  is  the 
author  of  his  own  existence — he  is  equally  dependent 
on  God  for  all  his  exercises,  as  for  his  powers,  or  his 
very  being.  Every  effect  must  have  a  cause,  and  God 
is  the  great  first  cause  of  all  things  caused.  If  we  have 
any  powers,  or  exercises,  or  volitions,  for  which  we 
are  not  dependent  on  God — whence  are  they  derived  ? 
Are  they  self-caused  ?  No  more  than  we  are  self- 
made  ; — for  our  being  is  but  an  effect  equally  requiring 
a  cause  :  and  our  preservation  is  but  a  continued 
creation,  and  both  being  and  thought  are  equally  but 
links  in  the  great  extended  chain  of  effects,  alike 
depending  on  some  preceding,®  independent,  first 
cause.  Now  disconnect  all  the  links  of  a  suspended 
chain  from  the  first  link,  and  they  all  fall  to  the  ground. 
They  all  depend  upon  the  first  link.  So  disconnect 
second  causes,  as  they  are  called,  from  the  first  cause, 
and  what  are  they?  Nothing.  They  cease  to  be  causes, 
and  have  no  effect.  All  their  efficacy  is  from  God. 
They  have  but  the  medium  of  his  operation.  In  God 
we  live  and  move  (or  are  moved)  and  have  our  being. 
God  is  the  great  and  universal  agent,  who  worketh  all 
things  after  the  counsel  of  his  own  will.  We  look 
but  a  little  way,  and  to  very  little  purpose,  if  we  stop 
short  of  the  first  cause,  and  ascribe  any  independent 
agency  to  creatures,  or  second  causes.  It  does  not  and 
cannot,  belong  to  them.  Absolute  dependence  is  inse¬ 
parable  from  the  character  of  a  creature.  Independent 
volitions  flowing  from  dependent  being  and  powers, 
is  an  absurdity,  as  great,  as  that  of  a  dependent  God. 

The  same  absurdity  attends  the  idea  of  a  selfdeterm¬ 
ining  power  in  the  human  will.  This  is  inconsistent 
with  the  character  of  a  creature,  and  can  be  built  on  no 
other  foundation,  but  that  of  his  independence.  A 
power  in  the  will  of  choosing  or  refusing,  loving  or  hat¬ 
ing,  independent  of  motives,  and  from  no  other  cause, 
but  its  own  power  of  willing,  or  forbearing  to  will,  I 
cannot  conceive  of  as  belonging  to  any  creature.  Not 
to  be  influenced  by  motives  in  choosing  the  greatest  ap¬ 
parent  good,  would  argue  us  void  of  natural  reason,  as 
well  as  moral  goodness.  It  would  be  a  freedom  worse 


7 


74 


than  bondage,  and  make  us  machines  in  tho  most  de¬ 
grading  sense.  What  better  would  it  be  than  idiocy  ? 
Should  we  see  a  man,  with  his  eyes  open,  as  willing  to 
run  into  the  fire  and  burn,  or  into  the  water  and  drown, 
as  he  is  to  feed  and  protect  himself, — we  should,  at 
at  once,  call  him  a  fool  or  a  lunatic. 

But  such  a  power  as  this,  must  be  implied  in  the  ob¬ 
jection.  It  is  contended  for  by  many,  and  fully  ex¬ 
pressed  in  that  Arminian  sentiment,  that,  the  mind 
has  a  native  power  to  direct  the  choice  of  the  will.  Eve¬ 
ry  rational  mind  as  I  conceive,  is  actuated  by  some  mo¬ 
tive,  and  in  no  other  way  can  act  rationally  in  choos¬ 
ing.  This  position  appears  almost  too  evident  to  need 
argument.  It  cannot  be  true,  that  the  will  is  self-di¬ 
rected  by  any  native,  internal  power  of  the  mind  it¬ 
self.  It  is  the  motive  which  directs — it  is  the  power 
of  something  without  the  mind  which  guides  and  influ¬ 
ences  the  choice  of  the  will.  The  choice  is  ever  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  present  greatest  apparent  good.  This 
is  the  motive  and  ground  of  choosing. 

If  it  be  asked  what  gives  efficacy  to  external  objects 
to  operate  as  motives  in  directing  the  choice  of  the 
will  ?  I  answer  at  once  that  power  that  gives  being, 
life  and  motion  to  universal  nature.  It  can  be  resolv¬ 
ed  into  no  other  cause. 

Furthermore,  there  is  a  moral  necessity  upon  the 
will  of  making  a  choice,  whenever  an  object,  or  two 
or  more  objects  are  presented,  and  it  is  impossible 
that  it  should  not  choose.  Its  freedom  does  not  con¬ 
sist  in  forbearing  to  choose,  but  actually  choosing. 
Otherwise,  the  will  might  will  not  to  choose,  and  as 
well  might  will  to  will  not  to  choose;  and  so  you  might 
trace  it  back,  ad  infinitum . — But  then  this  absudrity 
would  follow,  that  the  will  wills,  before  it  does  will, 
and  choses  before  it  actually  makes  a  choice. — But  is 
not  here  an  act  of  the  will,  and  a  real  choice  made  ? 

Take  for  an  example,  the  doctrine  I  am  now  advo¬ 
cating,  that  is,  the  absolute  dependence  of  creatues. 
Here  is  an  object  presented  you,  and  I  ask,  is  it  possi¬ 
ble  for  you  not  to  make  a  choice  ? — If  convinced  of  its 
truth,  you  will  embrace  rather  than  reject  it,  because 


75 


that  is  the  greatest  apparent  good.  Here  you  make  a 
choice. 

if,  on  the  contrary,  you  disbelieve  it,  and  are  uncon¬ 
vinced  of  its  truth;  you  will  then  reject,  rather  than 
embrace  ;  because  that  is  the  greatest  apparent  good. 
Here  again  you  make  a  choice. 

If  you  are  in  doubt  of  its  truth,  and  cannot  at  once 
determine  whether  the  arguments  brought  to  support 
it,  be  substantial  or  sophistical,  you  will  conclude  to 
suspend  your  judgment  for  further  examination — then, 
to  suspend  your  judgment  is  the  greatest  apparent 
good — to  suspend,  therefore,  is  the  object  of  your 
choice  ;  and  here  a  choice  is  actually  made. 

If  you  should  care  nothing  at  all  about  it,  and  feel 
perfectly  indifferent,  whether  it  be  true  or  false  ;  and 
you  hence  determine  to  pay  no  farther  attention  to 
it ;  then  to  neglect  it,  would  be  the  greatest  apparent 
good.  Here  again  is  a  motive  and  a  choice.  And  so 
in  whatever  form  the  case  may  be  put,  the  same  moral 
necessity  of  choosing  would  follow.  And  the  same 
illustration  would  flow  from  examples  where  two  or 
more  objects  of  choice  are  presented — but  the  cause 
or  actuating  motive,  which  directs  the  choice  of  the 
will,  in  every  supposeable  case  is  something  without 
the  mind — some  external  power  :  it  could  not  be  any 
self  determing  power  of  the  will — or  a  native  power  in 
the  mind  itself,  which  directed  the  choice  of  the  will. 

Thus,  I  think  that  moral  necessity  is  perfectly  con¬ 
sistent  with  the  freedom  of  the  will.  It  is  in  fact  that 
very  freedom  which  consists  in  always  acting  choice. 
When  a  man  sees  himself  in  imminent  danger,  and 
withal  but  one,  and  that  an  easy  and  delightful  method 
of  safety  ; — can  he  counteract  the  influence  of  this 
powerful  motive?  Can  he  avoid  choosing  it  ?  And  at 
the  same  time,  will  he  not  act  most  freely  in  making 
the  choice  ?  Indubitably.  The  greater  that  necessity, 
the  greater  will  be  his  freedom. 

But  if  men  have  such  a  native,  internal,  self-deter¬ 
mining  power,  why  do  they  not  convert  themselves  ? 
It  all  consists  but  in  an  exercise  of  the  will.  Conver¬ 
sion  is  only  an  act  of  choosing.  And  sinners  have 
every  reason  to  choose  holiness  in  preference  to  sin — 


76 


and  choose  the  friendship  and  enjoyment  of  God  rath¬ 
er  than  the  friendship  of  the  world,  and  the  enjoyment 
of  carnal  pleasures.  In  continuing  enemies  to  God, 
they  continue  every  moment  in  extreme  danger,  and 
incur  the  most  aggravated  guilt.  They  will  acknowl¬ 
edge  themselves  unconverted — that  they  must  be  con¬ 
verted,  or  fail  of  salvation  ;  and  will  even  say  that  they 
wish  they  were  converted.  But  they  are  not  yet 
ready,  and  like  Felix  are  waiting  for  a  more  conven¬ 
ient  time.  They  are  indisposed  *to  attend  upon  it  at 
present.  To  enjoy  the  pleasures  of  sin  for  a  season  is 
to  them,  the  greatest  apparent  good.  These,  there¬ 
fore,  are  the  objects  of  their  choice.  And  thus  earyh 
is  preferred  to  heaven,  and  sensual  enjoyments  to  the 
pleasures  of  religion,  and  the  holy  delight  of  commun¬ 
ion  with  God.  And  thus  they  are  characterized  by 
the  apostle,  “  Lovers  of  pleasure  more  than  lovers  of 
God.”  2.  Tim.  iii.  14.  This  is  the  whole  of  human 
depravity,  or  moral  impotence.  This  is  the  great,  and 
only  difficulty  in  the  way  of  the  sinner’s  conversion. 
“  Ye  will  not  come  unto  me  that  ye  might  have  life.” 
And  this  is  a  greater  difficulty  in  the  sinner’s  way, 
than  most  are  aware  ;  especially  they  who  hold  to  a 
self-determining  power  in  the  will,  or  that  a  man  can 
will  to  change  his  will,  before  he  does  change  it.  The 
want  of  a  disposition,  though  the  very  thing  in  which 
consists  our  blame,  is  as  fatal  a  bar,  as  the  want  of 
natural  power  :  for  to  will  what  we  do  not  will,  needs 
only  to  be  named  to  be  disproved.  Unless,  therefore, 
a  sovereign  God  interpose  by  the  power  of  his  Spirit 
to  change  the  disposition,  and  make  us  willing  to  em¬ 
brace  the  truth,  we  shall  never  change  our  perverse 
wills — we  shall  never  repent.  If  God  do  not  arrest  us 
in  our  sinful  career,  it  is  as  certain  as  we  exist,  that 
we  shall  pursue  the  broad  downward  road,  till  we  ar¬ 
rive  at  the  frontiers  of  eternal  darkness. 

These  doctrines  confound  the  distinction  between 
virtue  and  vice,  and  moral  good  and  evil.  If  the  mind 
in  its  native  state,  be  not  eqully  free  to  choose  holiness 
as  sin — if  by  a  fixed  and  established  law  of  his  nature 
the  creature  be  bound  down  to  evil  only  wihout  an  al¬ 
ternative — it  is  in  vain  to  establish  his  free-agency—- 


he  is  free  to  no  purpose,  or  rather  to  a  purpose  worse 
than  none.  Such  a  freedom  which  leaves  the  creature 
under  the  necessity  of  sinning,  destroys  his  character 
as  a  moral  agent  and  effectually  removes  all  ground 
of  accountably.  The  creature  is  incapable  of  incur¬ 
ring  blame.” 

The  sum  and  substance  of  this  objection  amounts  to 
this  and  no  more,  viz.  that  the  absolute  dependence  of 
the  creature  is  irreconcilable  with  his  accountability  ; 
and  it  is  evidently  built  on  this  ground  that  a  self  de¬ 
termining  power  in  the  will  is  essential  to  moral  agen- 
cy. 

The  question  is  now  a  little  changed,  but  it  stands 
or  falls  with  the  merits  of  the  former.  It  springs  from 
the  same  root,  and  bears  the  same  fruit.  That  rested 
upon  the  distinction  between  a  man  and  a  clock — this 
upon  the  difference  between  a  man  and  a  brute.  In 
the  former  it  has  been  shown,  that  a  man  may  be  a 
free  agent,  consistently  with  his  being  wholly  depend¬ 
ent — or  without  possessing  any  such  thing  as  a  self- 
determining  power  in  the  will.  This  is  presumptive 
evidence  against  the  validity  of  the  present  objection. 
It  induces  a  belief  in  the  mind  of  the  candid  inquirer 
that  a  mutual  consistency  between  a  state  of  absolute 
dependence  and  moral  agency,  or  accountableness  is 
equally  capable  of  proof.  If  there  be  no  weight  in  the 
former  objection,  there  is  just  as  little  in  this.  Strip 
it  of  its  specious  covering,  and  its  naked  absurdity  will 
appear. 

In  order  to  this  we  must  in  the  first  place,  as  we  did 
before,  guard  against  any  dispute  about  words,  by 
clearly  ascertaining  what  is  the  ground  of  accounta¬ 
bility — or  what  is  moral  agency.  Now  a  brute  is  a 
free  agent— he  has  voluntary  motion,  or  a  capacity  of 
choice,  as  well  as  a  man — but  yet  he  is  not  a  moral 
agent — he  is  not  an  accountable  creature.  Therefore 
only  let  this  simple  question  be  answered  ;  what  men¬ 
tal  property  constitutes  the  essential  distinction  be¬ 
tween  a  man  and  the  horse  he  rides  ?  and  the  point  of 
difference  on  the  part  of  the  man,  will  be  the  very  and 
the  only  thing,  in  which  moral  agency  essentially  con- 


78 


sists.  This  too  will  serve  as  a  key  by  which  we  may 
unlock  the  merits  of  the  present  objection. 

The  question  is  as  easily  answered  as  asked.  It  is 
Reason  which  distinguishes  the  man  and  gives  him  a 
superiority  to  the  grazing  brute.  This  is  the  ground 
and  foundation  of  his  accountability.  By  this  he  pos¬ 
sesses  a  consciousness  of  right  and  wrong — is  capable 
of  moral  exercises,  and  is  a  qualified  subject  of  moral 
rule  and  government. 

But  it  has  been  shown  that  the  exercise  of  a  self  de¬ 
termining  power,  in  the  will  a  power  of  acting  or  sus¬ 
pending  choice  independent  of  motives,  is  inconsistent 
with  the  exercise  of  reason,  and  denominates  the  man 
a  fool  or  a  maniac.  If  therefore  the  exercising  of  such 
a  power  be  inconsistent  with  the  exercise  of  reason, 
the  want  of  it  cannot  destroy  the  man’s  moral  agency, 
and  make  him  a  brute. 

On  the  other  hand  it  has  been  evinced  with  equal 
clearness,  that  when  the  will  is  influenced  by  an  exter¬ 
nal  object,  and  the  choice  directed  according  to  the 
greatest  apparent  good,  then  reason  performs  its  office 
— then  only  man  acts  in  character  as  a  rational  being. 
If  reason,  then,  constitute  moral  agency,  the  exercise 
of  reason  cannot  destroy  it. 

It  is  true,  men  often  act  unreasonably  ; — impenitent 
sinners  invariably  so  act.  They  do  nothing  but  sin, 
and  every  sin  is  contrary  to  the  dictates  of  right  rea¬ 
son.  But  their  misimprovement  of  reason,  does  not 
remove  their  moral  agency  ; — they  possesed  reason, 
but  perverted  it  to  a  wrong  and  wicked  end.  This  is 
the  ground  of  their  guilt.  It  is  the  fruit  of  a  depraved 
taste,  that  an  evil  object  should  bechosen,  as  the  great¬ 
est  apparent  good.  But  how  this  destroys  the  nature 
of  right  and  wrong,  or  confounds  the  essential  distinc¬ 
tion  between  virtue  and  vice,  or  moral  good  and  evil, 
is  for  the  objector  to  show,  and  that  too  under  the  dis¬ 
advantage  of  having  it  already  disproved.  These 
points  are  established,  that  mankind  are  naturally  and 
totally  depraved — are  consequently  absolutely  depend¬ 
ent — that  voluntary  motion  is  the  freedom  of  the  will, 
and  reason  the  distinguishing  criterion  of  a  moral 


70 


agent,  and  a  property  remaining  unimpaired  by  the 
fall.  What  ground  then  remains  for  the  objection  ? 

But  should  you  now  still  urge  that  the  dependence 
of  the  creature  destroys  his  criminality,  I  would  turn 
your  objection  upon  you,  and  ask,  why  the  creature’s 
dependence  does  not  equally  destroy  the  praise-wor- 
thiness  of  virtue  ?  That  good  men  are  absolutely  de¬ 
pendent  for  their  goodness — that,  their  virtues  are  not 
self  originated  but  derived  from  God,  and  their  holy 
exercises  the  fruits  of  his  Spirit,  influencing  their 
hearts  to  that  which  is  good,  working  in  them  both  to 
will  and  to  do,  of  his  own  good  pleasure  ;  is  an  ac¬ 
knowledged  doctrine  of  the  Bible — professed  and  em¬ 
braced  by  Christians  of  all  sects.  Now,  I  ask,  why 
the  same  consequences  do  not  follow  in  this  case  as  in 
the  other?  Why  the  dependence  of  the  saints  for  their 
holy  exercises  does  not  equally  operate  against  their 
moral  agency,  and  destroy  the  praise  worthiness  of 
their  virtues  ?  It  certainly  must  have  this  effect  in  both 
cases — if  it  destroys  moral  agency  in  either. — Until 
this  difficulty  is  fairly  removed,  I  must  conclude,  that 
the  reverse  of  the  objection  is  true  ; — that  a  self  deter¬ 
mining  power  is  inconsistent  with  freedom  and  moral 
agency  ;  and  if  made  the  foundation  of  accountability, 
tends  to  confound  the  distinction  between  moral  good 
and  evil. 

But  stress,  I  find,  is  laid  on  the  terms  “  native  state,” 
as  a  circumstance  rendering  the  inconsistency  between 
dependence  and  accountability  the  more  glaring.  “  If 
the  mind  in  its  native  state ,  be  not  equally  free  to 
choose  holiness  as  sin,”  &c.  You  must  have  argued 
thus  in  your  own  mind,  and  set  it  down  for  proof — If 
sin  be  natural  to  us ,  it  is  necessary — and  if  it  be  neces¬ 
sary, 'it  is  no  sin.  This  is  truly  a  short,  but  a  danger¬ 
ous  mode  of  reasoning.  If  it  proves  any  thing,  it 
proves  every  thing.  It  is  a  sword  with  two  edges  and 
wounds  both  ways.  By  the  same  arrangement,  it  is 
equally  easy  to  prove  that  the  angels  in  heaven  are 
destitute  of  holiness  and  are  not  moral  agents.  Thus — 
If  holiness  be  natural  to  them,  it  is  necessary  ;  and  if 
necessary ,  it  is  no  holiness.  You  surely,  my  friend, 
must  have  been  unapprized  of  the  immeasurable 


lengths  to  which  this  reasoning  would  carry  you — for 
if  to  be  equally  free  to  choose  good  as  evil,  be  a  neces¬ 
sary  foundation  of  the  sinner’s  guilt — then  on  the  oth¬ 
er  hand,  it  would  be  just  as  necessary  as  a  foundation 
of  moral  virtue  in  a  perfectly  holy  being,  that  he 
should  be  naturally  and  equally  free  to  choose  evil  as 
good.  But  this  hypothesis  cannot  bear  its  own  weight. 
It  is  too  gross  to  be  received  by  any  reflecting  and  dis¬ 
cerning  mind,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  apply  it  in  a  sin¬ 
gle  instance.  The  holiness  of  God  is  natural  to  him — 
is  essential  to  his  nature — therefore  it  is  necessary — 
and  therefore  it  is  no  holiness. 

Again.  God  is  free  to  choose  only  good — it  is  infi¬ 
nitely  and  forever  impossible  that  he  should  make  an 
evil  choice — therefore  he  cannot  be  a  free  agent,  or  a 
holy  being — he  is  “  bound  down  to  the  choice  of  good 
only,  without  an  alternative.” 

Such  consequences  inevitably  follow  the  idea  of  a 
self  determining  power  being  the  foundation  of  moral 
agency,  are  destructive  of  all  virtue  or  vice,  praise 
or  blame.  Only  set  moral  necessity  and  natural  liber¬ 
ty  at  variance,  and  you  strike  all  holiness  out  of  the 
universe,  and  land  in  the  darkness  and  horrors  of  athe¬ 
ism. 

Yours  &c. 

Aristarchus. 


sn 


LETTER  VIE 


Dear  Sir, 

“  He  that  is  first  in  his  own  cause  seemeth  just ;  but 
his  neighbour  cometh  and  searcheth  him.”  Your  next 
objection  to  the  exclusive  agency  of  divine  grace  in 


Si 


regeneration,  it  seems  to  me  you  could  not  have 
brought  forward,  had  you  duly  weighed  the  arguments 
offered  in  my  two  former  letters.  But  as  it  embraces 
some  cardinal  points  in  your  system,  I  will  give  it  a 
candid  and  thorough  examination  :  and  in  compliance 
with  your  request,  make  an  honest  and  faithful  effort 
to  set  you  right.  You  say, 

“  I  must  object  to  your  utterly  excluding  the  agen¬ 
cy  of  the  creature  in  regeneration,  as  irrational,  un- 
scriptural  and  dangerous.  Irrational,  because  it  does 
not  accord  with  the  character  of  a  free  moral  agent, 
or  with  the  nature  of  conversion,  which  consists  as 
you  have  justly  stated,  in  the  act  of  the  creature — his 
voluntary  turning  to  God.  It  is  unscriptural,  because, 
uncotnformable  to  the  terms  of  the  gospel — the  free  of¬ 
fers  of  salvation — backed  as  they  are  with  the  posi¬ 
tive  command  of  God,  enjoining  the  immediate  and  ef¬ 
fective  act  of  the  sinner,  “  Make  to  yourselves  a  new 
heart  and  a  new  spirit,  for  why  will  ye  die  O  house  of 
Israel.”  And  now  shall  we  reply  against  God,  and  say 
that  the  sinner  cannot  change  his  own  heart — that  in 
regeneration  he  is  merely  an  inactive  recipient  of  di¬ 
vine  grace  ?  It  is  a  dangerous  sentiment,  because  it  is 
directly  calculated  to  cut  off  every  motive  to  exertion 
and  fortify  the  sinner  in  his  stupidity  and  neglect  of 
salvation.  He  will  at  once  reply,  “You  tell  me  I  can 
repent  and  I  cannot — I  must  be  converted,  and  i  can¬ 
not  convert  myself — that  I  am  so  wholly  dependent  ; 
that  I  can  do  nothing:  1  will  not,  therefore  attempt 
any  thing  ;  for,  there  is  nothing  for  me  to  do.  I  will 
wait,  till  God  is  pleased  to  change  my  heart.”  Is  it 
not  the  natural,  necessary  and  known  effect  of  this 
predestinarian  doctrine,  to  harden  the  heart,  and  stupi- 
fy  the  conscience  ? 

I  believe,  that  God  deals  with  mankind,  not  as  inert 
matter,  susceptible  only  of  physical  power  ;  but  as  be¬ 
ing  what  they  are,  rational  creatures — free  moral 
agents — susceptible  of  motives,  and  capable  of  choos¬ 
ing  for  themselves  ; — and  that  the  sinner’s  conversion 
is  effected  by  motives  addressed  to  his  reason  and  his 
love  of  happiness — by  the  moral  means  of  persuasion, 
without  any  physical  power.  To  elucidate  and  en» 


82 


force  this  sentiment,  look  at  the  case  of  king  Aggrip- 
pa,  (, Acts  xxvi.  28,)  and  the  effects  of  Paul’s  preaching 
upon  his  mind  : — almost  thou  persuadest  me  to  be  a 
Christian.”  Now  what  physical  power  was  exerted  in 
his  case  ?  Were  not  his  feelings  affected,  and  his  con¬ 
science  convicted  by  persuasion — by  the  moral  power 
of  truth,  enforced  by  a  divine  influence?  And  who  has 
any  reason  or  right  to  say,  that  this  same  influence,  if 
continued,  and  suflicienily  increased,  would  not  have 
issued  in  Agrippa’s  complete  conversion — his  being 
altogether  persuaded  to  be  a  Christian  ? 

A  change  of  heart  is  no  other  than  a  change  of  pur¬ 
pose.  Whenever  a  sinner  becomes  persuaded,  that 
religion  is  preferable  to  sin — that  the  Christian  hope 
will  be  more  conducive  to  his  happiness,  than  the  ob¬ 
jects  of  this  world,  and  thence  resolves  to  be  a  Chris¬ 
tian — he  is  converted,  lie  is  a  Christian.  And  if  I  have 
persuaded  him  to  become  a  Christian,  it  is  correct  to 
say  that  I  have  changed  his  heart,  and  it  is  certain  that 
he  has  changed  his  own  heart.  This  no  man  can  deny. 
And  what  matter  is  it,  what  were  the  operating  mo¬ 
tive  ;  whether  it  were  love  or  hatred,  fear  or  hope,  or 
whether  accompanied  with  divine  influence  or  not,  if 
the  important  change  be  accomplished  ?  If  I  am  wrong 
in  my  views  upon  this  subject,  be  so  kind  as  to  set  me 
right.” 

The  scheme  of  regeneration  which  you  have  here 
presented  is  plausible  to  the  superficial  thinker,  and 
too  congenial  to  the  natural  feelings  of  men,  not  to  be 
imposing  and  popular.  It  is  gratifying  to  the  pride 
and  self  sufficiency  of  fallen  creatures,  to  believe,  that 
they  are  not  utterly  lost  and  helpless — that  they  can 
and  do  change  their  own  hearts  ;  or  at  least  so  coope¬ 
rate  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  to  lend  much  necessary 
assistance  to  the  divine  agency,  in  order  to  accomplish 
this  object.  And  this  seems  rational  and  right  to  them, 
because  they  are  free  agents,  capable  of  choice,  and 
conversion  is  the  sinner’s  own  free  act.  But,  Sir,  the 
foundation  on  which  you  build,  is  radically  defective 
and  unsound ;  and  upon  examination  it  will  be  found, 
that  the  criminating  terms,  irrational ,  unscriptural 
and  dangerous,  which,  with  so  much  assurance,  you 


j 


83 


apply  to  the  sentiment  you  oppose,  do,  in  sober  reali¬ 
ty  belong  to  that  which  you  defend.  Your  reason¬ 
ings  are  a  departure  from  established  first  principles — 
opposed  to  the  analogy  of  scriptural  instruction,  the 
consistency  of  moral  character,  and  the  true  philoso¬ 
phy  of  the  human  mind. 

Reason  is  indeed  of  important  use  in  our  research¬ 
es  for  divine  truth  ;  but  unless  subjected  to  the  wisdom 
of  God’s  word,  it  is  a  dangerous  guide,  which  “  leads 
to  bewilder  and  dazzles  to  blind.”  Give  Scripture  its 
rightful  authority  as  the  only  standard  of  truth  ; — let 
it  be  permitted  to  interpret  itself — and  to  occupy  the 
whole  ground  of  discussion  ;  and  we  shall  be  led  to  a 
safe  result  ;  and  enabled  correctly  to  determine,  what 
is  rational  to  believe  or  reject. 

You  object  to  the  intire  exclusion  of  the  sinner’s 
agency  in  his  regeneration,  and  call  it  irrational,  un- 
scriptural  and  dangerous.  I  will  credit  your  sinceri¬ 
ty  in  the  objection,  though  I  cannot  your  correctness. 
The  objection  is  unfounded,  and  all  your  reasonings, 
professedly  drawn  from  Scripture  and  reason,  are  so¬ 
phistical  and  absurd.  It  really  amounts  to  a  denial  of 
total  depravity  ;  and  to  be  consistent  you  must  re¬ 
nounce  this  cardinal  doctrine  of  Christianity  ;  and 
when  you  have  done  this,  there  is  no  occasion  of  talk¬ 
ing  at  all  about  regeneration  ; — for  there  would  be  no 
need  or  possibility  of  a  change  of  heart. 

In  producing  regeneration  according  to  your  views, 
there  appears  to  be  a  continuation  of  moral  influence, 
all  cooperating  to  the  same  end, — viz.  the  force  of 
truth — the  agency  of  the  sinner,  and  the  persuasive 
energy  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Now,  look  at  it  intelli¬ 
gently,  with  a  candid  and  unprejudiced  mind,  and  fair¬ 
ly  tell  me  how  all  this  can  be  ? — Let  me  know  what 
part  or  degree  of  this  agency  is  performed  by  the 
fallen  and  totally  depraved  creature  ?  What  is  the  act 
of  the  sinner  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins,  to  effect  his 
own  resurrection  to  spiritual  life,  and  possess  himself 
of  the  image  of  God  ?  His  heart  is  totally  alienated — 
his  mind  is  enmity  against  God  : — Is  he  then  a  fit  or 
capable  agent  to  cooperate  with  the  divine  Spirit  in 
changing  his  own  heart  ?  Will  the  carnal  mind  per- 


64 


form  a  holy  exercise  ?  Will  enmity  against  God,  per¬ 
form  acts  of  friendship  to  him  ?  Is  there  no  difference 
between  hatred  and  love  ; — or  so  little  that  the  sinner 
can  as  easily  exercise  love  as  enmity  towards  an  ob¬ 
ject  which  he  perfectly  hates  ?  Can  he  even  will  to 
love?  Is  not  the  willing  to  love  an  exercise  of  love? 
Can  friendship  be  the  fruit  of  enmity,  and  causes  per¬ 
fectly  dissimilar,  produce  similar  and  the  same  effects  ? 
No.  The  idea  is  absurd — an  outrage  upon  common 
sense.  As  long  as  the  pride  of  the  heart  is  unsubdu¬ 
ed,  and  the  will  unrenewed  ;  every  exercise  is  an  act 
of  opposition,  and,  in  the  very  nature  of  things,  there 
can  be  no  submission  ; — still  less  any  cooperation. 
The  creature  has  indeed  an  agency  in  this  concern — 
he  acts,  and  with  all  the  powers  of  his  soul,  but  it  is 
in  direct  opposition  to  the  strivings  of  the  Spirit.  He 
will  not  come  to  Christ  that  he  might  have  life,  and 
obstinately  refuses  to  give  him  his  heart.  The  light 
shines  brightly  in  his  understanding.  His  conscience 
is  convinced,  but  his  heart  is  dark  and  unreconciled. 
“  Ye  stiffnecked  and  uncircumcised  in  heart  and  ears  ; 
ye  do  always  resist  the  Holy  Ghost” — is  the  language 
of  God’s  word.  And  where  there  is  this  determined 
opposition,  and  there  is  in  all  cases,  until  the  heart  is 
changed,  what  is  the  influence  of  the  sinner,  and  what 
his  cooperation  with  the  Spirit  of  God  in  changing  his 
own  heart  ?  Does  he  exercise  reconciliation  to  God 
before  he  has  any  reconciliation? — No  : — but  directly 
the  reverse.  His  attention  to  religion — his  awaken¬ 
ing  and  conviction — and  his  use  of  means,  are  all  en¬ 
forced  upon  him,  and  against  the  whole  wind  and  tide 
of  his  natural  inclination  and  desire — it  is  an  upstream 
course.  We  know  full  well,  it  is  proved  by  facts,  and 
demonstrated  by  the  constant  and  uniform  course  of 
human  conduct,  that  a  total  inattention  to  religion  and 
all  the  means  of  grace,  is  the  sinner’s  choice.  He  loves 
and  chooses  darkness  rather  than  light,  and  will  not 
come  to  the  light.  His  feelings  are  truly  expressed 
by  the  language  of  the  murmuring  Israelites — “  Let 
us  alone  that  we  may  serve  the  Egyptians.” — He  had 
lived  years,  and  all  his  life  long,  under  the  faithful 
preaching  of  the  gospel.  He  had  the  same  instruc- 


85 


tion,  the  same  truths,  means  and  motives  used :  all 
the  threatnings  of  the  law — all  the  invitations  of  the 
gospel — all  the  horrors  of  hell  and  the  joys  of  heaven 
set  before  him,  and  urged  upon  him  and  yet  continu¬ 
ed  through  the  whole,  perfectly  deaf  and  regardless. 
The  same  truths  which  had  long  been  heard  with 
an  unfeeling  indifference,  and  without  producing  any 
other  than  a  hardening  effect,  are  now  seen  to  ope¬ 
rate  with  an  irresistable  energy,  and  to  carry  alarm 
and  conviction  and  terror  to  the  most  stupid.  An 
effect  is  produced  at  once,  which  ministers  of  the  gos¬ 
pel,  and  Christian  friends  had  long  laboured  to  pro¬ 
duce,  but  laboured  in  vain.  Unquestionably,  there¬ 
fore,  it  is  wrought  by  a  secret,  special,  and  powerful 
divine  influence.  But  though  he  is  now  awakened  and 
alarmed  with  a  view  of  his  dangerous  state — his  con¬ 
science  convicted  of  sin,  and  guilt,  and  horror  and  hell 
stare  him  in  the  face;  yet  he  is  still  no  more  disposed 
to  comply  with  the  call  of  God,  than  he  was,  while 
stupid  and  secure.  He  does  not  now  indeed,  view  the 
warnings  of  heaven  to  be  idle  tales,  as  he  formerly  did 
—  but  he  is  as  much  in  love  with  sin  ;  as  much  attach¬ 
ed  to  his  natural  state  ;  and  he  feels  his  attachment  to 
if  now,  stronger  than  ever.  His  whole  heart  is  oppos¬ 
ed  to  the  call  of  God,  and  the  strivings  of  his  Spirit, 
and  he  will  not  go  a  step  further  or  faster  than  he  is 
compelled.  Yet,  perhaps,  he  may  think,  that  he  is 
seeking  the  grace  of  God — preparing  himself  to  come 
to  Christ,  and  to  cooperate  with  the  Spirit  of  God  in 
changing  his  heart.  Will  it  now  be  the  duty  of  his 
spiritual  guide  to  strengthen  him  in  this  awful  delu¬ 
sion  ?  yea  to  go  further,  to  encourage  him  to  trust 
wholly  in  his  own  strength,  and  tell  him  that  God  will 
do  no  more  for  him  —  and  that  he  can  do  no  more; 
he  must  now  do  the  whole  work  himself? 

In  this  view  bf  the  awakened  sinner,  I  ask,  what 
will,  or  can  be  the  effect  of  persuasion  to  produce  a 
saving  change  in  his  heart?  That  he  is  a  rational  crea¬ 
ture — capable  of  moral  rule  and  government,  and  has 
a  natural  power  or  capacity  to  love  God  and  obey  his 
commands — are  points  in  which  we  are  agreed,  as 
forming  the  prerequisites  of  moral  agency  :  but  what 

8 


s 


86 


is  all  this  to  the  purpose  ?  It  decides  nothing.  This 
instruction,  accompanied  by  divine  influence,  which 
alone  gives  truth  any  effect,  goes  only  to  the  convic¬ 
tion  of  his  conscience,  and  has  no  tendency  to  change 
his  heart.  He  still  lacks  a  disposition  to  love  and 
obey  God  ;  and  it  is  this  which  completes  and  seals 
his  ruin — renders  him  helpless  and  hopeless  in  his 
own  strength,  and  wholly  dependent  on  the  power  and 
grace  of  God  to  change  his  heart.  Means  have  no  ef¬ 
ficacy  to  do  this.  Light,  as  we  have  already  seen,  has 
no  power  to  change  the  sinner’s  heart.  It  affects  only 
the  conscience,  previous  to  regeneration.  The  light 
of  Heaven  would  but  enrage  the  carnal  heart  ;  and 
were  his  conviction  as  great  as  that  of  the  damned,  his 
opposition  would  rise  in  the  same  proportion.  In 
vain  are  the  offers  and  invitations  of  the  gospel  ad¬ 
dressed  to  him,  for  he  will  despise  and  reject  them. 
The  clearest  light  will  not  open  his  e3res,  for  they  are 
linded  by  satan  the  god  of  this  world.  Knowledge 
will  not  convince  him.  Conviction  will  not  reclaim 
him.  ’  Means  will  harden  him.  Perishing  necessity 
will  not  alarm  him.  Motives  of  hope  and  fear,  of  love 
and  terror,  are  lost  upon  him.  Neither  the  glories  of 
heaven,  nor  the  horrors  of  hell,  can  arrest  him  in  his 
mad  career  of  iniquity,  or  direct  his  course  a  moment 
from  the  broad  and  downward  road.  Dead  in  tres¬ 
passes  and  sins,  the  life  giving  Spirit  of  God  alone  can 
restore  him  to  holiness,  to  happiness,  and  to  God.  It 
is  certain  that  he  must  be  born  again — must  become  a 
new  creature,  or  perish. 

Where  then  shall  we  place  the  doctrine  of  persua¬ 
sion  ; — and  what  efficacy  may  we  safely  ascribe  to  its 
influence  1  Is  it  in  safe  keeping  with  the  sovereign 
agency  of  the  Spirit,  in  changing  the  sinner’s  heart  ? 
You  rely  much  upon  it  as  the  proximate  cause  of  this 
effect ;  and  for  proof  cite  the  example  of  Agrippa, 
who  under  the  preaching  of  Saul  was  so  much  excited 
as  to  exclaim — “Almost  thou  persuadest  me  to  be  a 
Christian.”  And  then  ask,  with  more  confidence  than 
discernment — Who  has  right  or  reason  to  say  that  this 
same  influence  if  continued  and  sufficiently  increased , 
would  not  have  issued  in  Agrippa' s  complete  conver- 


87 


sionr  his  being  altogether  persuaded  to  be  a  Christian  ? 
I  answer,  every  one  has  reason  to  say  it.  The  Bible 
gives  him  the  highest  and  best  right  to  do  it.  Your 
reasoning  is  calculated  to  dupe  the  judgment  of  the 
superficial  thinker,  who  acts  regardless  of  distinctions, 
and  to  enlist  the  selfish  feelings  of  the  natural  man,  to 
whom,  the  things  of  the  Spirit  are  foolishness.  Your 
theory,  with  the  arguments  you  bring  to  support  it, 
and  the  consequences  you  derive  from  it,  are  built  on 
these  erroneous  principles,  that,  Regeneration  is  a  pro¬ 
gressive  work  commencing  with  conviction — that  the 
awakened  sinner,  is  gradually  advancing  in  his  moral 
temper  towards  a  state  of  reconciliation  to  God  : — 
that  conviction  has  a  direct  and  genuine  tendency  to 
conversion — and  that  the  same  kind  of  divine  influence 
by  which  the  sinner  is  convicted  of  sin  will,  if  increas¬ 
ed  in  degree,  produce  repentance  and  submission 
making  no  essential  distinction,  between  conviction 
and  conversion  ;  between  the  conscience  and  the  heart. 
The  incorrectness  and  danger  of  these  principles  have 
already  been  considered  and  exposed  :  and  I  would 
only  ask  you  to  review  in  application  to  this  subject, 
the  reasonings  addressed  to  you  in  my  former  letters, 
which  will  supersede  the  necessity  of  repetition. — 
Agrippa  appears  to  have  been  excited,  by  the  masterly 
reasoning  of  Paul,  Doubtless  he  felt  a  curiosity  to 
know  something  about  the  new  religion  which  Paul 
taught,  and  which  though  attested  by  miracles,  met 
with  clamorous  opposition  both  from  Jews  and  Gen¬ 
tiles.  He  therefore  listened  to  the  eloquence  of  Paul, 
who  in  concise  and  simple  terms,  related  the  manner 
and  circumstances  of  his  conversion — the  nature  of  the 
Christian  faith  ;  together  with  the  reason  and  grounds 
of  his  hope,  and  that  course  of  conduct,  which  had 
brought  upon  him  the  fierce  and  unrelenting  persecu¬ 
tion  of  the  Jews. — Paul’s  address  was  a  feast  to  the 
rational  mind.  Agrippa  felt  its  influence  :  and  though 
at  first  the  apostle  was  charged  with  madness, — yet  fi¬ 
nally  Agrippa  was  so  overcome  with  his  reasoning — 
his  mind  so  enlightened,  and  his  prejudices  for  the 
time  so  disarmed — that  he  was  constrained  to  bear  an 
unwilling  publick  testimony  to  the  excellence  of  Chris- 


88 


tianity,  which  this  madman  had  so  nobly  defended,  so 
incontestibly  proved  ;  and  exclaimed,  “  Almost  thou 
persuadest  me  to  be  a  Christian.”  And  why  was  he 
not  altogether  persuaded  ?  not  for  the  want  of  more 
powerful  means  of  persuasion — these  already  were  as 
great  as  an  inspired  apostle,  and  the  greatest  of  human 
reasoners  could  supply  :  and  these. must  confessedly 
have  been  powerful,  to  produce  the  effect — and  to  have 
brought  the.  mind  of  an  ignorant  heathen,  involved  in 
all  the  darkness  and  superstition  of  Pagan  idolatry,  in 
which  he  had  been  educated — to  make  such  a  confes¬ 
sion  in  honour  of  the  despised  Jesus  of  Nazareth, — 
Let  the  feelings  and  words  of  Agrippa,  have  all  the 
weight  which  can  be  justly  claimed — but  I  am  not  pre¬ 
pared  to  adopt  them  as  oracular  ;  or  to  set  up  the  ex¬ 
perience  of  an  ignorant  heathen  in  the  first  dawn  of 
gospel  light  upon  his  mind — as  the  test  of  truth — the 
standard  of  Christian  character  and  experience.  Agrip¬ 
pa  itris  true,  was  much  excited — but  as  it  was,  we  have 
no  certain  evidence  that  he  had  even  any  conviction  of 
sin.  If  he  had,  his  conscience  only  was  persuaded  : 
the  opposition  of  his  heart  rose  in  the  same  proportion, 
and  with  sufficient  strength  effectually  to  resist  convic¬ 
tion.  And  had  this  persuasion  been  continued  ever 
so  long,  and  increased  to  ever  so  high  a  degree — the 
result  would  have  been  the  same.  It  would  not  have 
reached  the  heart; — that  citadel  remains  unconquered, 
unassailed.  Agrippa  would  finally  have  been  no  more 
than  almost  persuaded — It  would  not  have  raised  him 
from  the  death  of  sin,  to  spiritual  and  divine  life  :  it 
would  not  have  brought  him  into  the  kingdom  of  heav¬ 
en,  and  made  him  a  real  Christian.  It  might  indeed 
have  ranked  him  in  that  class  of  converts,  who  from 
some  selfish  motive,  change  their  purpose,  and  resolve 
to  be  Christians  :  but  he  would  still  fall  immeasurably 
short  of  being  a  real  Christian — a  subject  of  saving 
grace.  The  poor  wretch  was  miserably  deceived  in 
himself,  in  supposing  that  he  was  almost  or  at  all  per¬ 
suaded  to  be  a  real  Christian.  Indeed,  my  friend,  the 
carnal  heart  is  not  a  possible  subject  of  persuasion. 
It  is  a  non-receiver  of  its  influence,  and  as  well  might 
you  prescribe  the  melody  of  musick  to  remove  blind- 


89 


ness,  as  the  influence  of  persuasion  to  change  the  sin¬ 
ner’s  heart,  and  restore  him  to  holiness.  There  is  no 
motive  to  holiness  which  can  be  brought  to  bear  upon 
it,  or  have  any  influence  to  change  its  character.  It  is 
a  moral  insanity  which  God  only  can  remove.  “  Mad¬ 
ness  is  in  their  heart  while  they  live.”  Eccl.  ix.  3. 
It  is  enmity,  and  can  be  nothing  different  from  itself. 
It  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God,  neither  indeed  can 
be.  When  the  heart  is  changed  and  sanctified,  it  then 
has  new  motives  and  desires.  It  is  then  made  good 
ground,  and  fitted  to  receive,  and  give  nourishment, 
growth  and  fruitfulness  to  the  good  seed  of  divine 
truth.  It  is  then  susceptible  of  the  persuasion  of  di¬ 
vine  influence,  and  not  before. 

One  source  of  your  error  on  this  point  is,  that  you 
make  no  distinction  between  regeneration  and  conver¬ 
sion  ;  but  blend  them,  and  the  divine  and  human  agen¬ 
cy  in  promiscuous  confusion.  I  have  already  stated 
and  defined  this  distinction.  It  is  important,  and  must 
again  be  brought  into  view,  and  made  to  bear  upon  the 
question.  Regeneration  is  the  act  of  God,  in  the  new 
spiritual  creation  of  the  soul  :  Conversion  is  an  exer¬ 
cise  of  the  new  heart,  by  which  the  sinner  turns  from 
a  wrong  to  a  right  course.  These  though  viewed  as 
cause  and  effect,  and  as  such  have  an  order  in  nature, 
are  notwithstanding,  simultaneous.  God  changes  the 
heart,  and  the  new  heart  at  the  same  instant  turns  to 
God  in  holy  love  : — as  God  said,  let  there  be  light,  and 
there  was  light — it  instantly  shone.  God  breathed  in¬ 
to  Adam  the  breath  of  life,  and  he  became  a  living 
soul ; — he  instantly  put  forth  the  appropriate  exercises 
of  that  life.  God  claims  the  prerogative  of  changing 
the  heart,  and  in  it  challenges  a  high  and  incommuni¬ 
cable  glory.  It  is  a  work  peculiarly  his  own,  in  which 
no  creature  shares  the  agency.  Not  by  might  nor  by 
powrer,  but  by  Spirit  saith  the  Lord.  Zach.  iv.  6. — 
“  A  new  heart  also  will  I  give  you  and  a  new  spirit 
will  I  put  within  you  ;  and  I  will  take  away  a  stony 
heart  out  of  your  flesh  ;  and  I  will  give  you  an  heart 
of  flesh.”  Ezekiel  xxxvi.  26.  God  here  acknowledg¬ 
es  no  agency  but  his  own  ;  and  this  with  a  solemn 
emphasis,  he  asserts  four  times  in  one  verse — the 

8* 


90 


more  effectually  to  bar  the  claim  from  the  unhallowed 
touch,  or  pretension  of  sinful  creatures.  Now  by 
making  the  heart  to  consist  in  exercises,  which  with 
you  is  a  favourite  and  distinguishing  tenet— -you  lose 
sight  of  regeneration,  as  the  act  of  God  in  changing 
the  heart,  previous  and  preparatory  to  creature  holi¬ 
ness  ;  and  make  the  whole,  no  other  than  conversion  ; 
and  this  truly  is  an  act  of  the  creature,  as  well  as  a 
fruit  of  divine  influence.  But  if  exercises  constitute 
the  heart,  and  there  be  no  principle  farther  back,  how 
shall  we  understand  it  in  the  analogy  of  reason  or 
scripture?  “  With  the  heart  man  believeth  unto  right¬ 
eousness,  and  with  the  mouth  confession  is  made  unto 
salvation.”  Now  what  is  it  here  that  believes  ?  What 
is  meant  by  the  heart?  Faith  is  the  predicate  of  the 
heart — it  is  with  or  by  the  heart  that  man  believes 
but  is  faith  the  same  as  the  heart;  and  at  once  the  ac¬ 
tion  and  the  agent  ?  But  you  will  say  that  you  cannot 
conceive  of,  nor  can  I  explain  to  you  what  is  princi¬ 
ple  abstract  from  exercise.  Let  it  be  so — and  we  will 
go  on,  from  this  data,  to  axplain  the  overt  act  in  the 
other  part  of  the  verse — “  with  the  mouth  confession 
is  made  unto  salvation  Now  supposing  there  is  as 
much  mystery  to  me  in  this  part  of  the  verse,  as  there 
is  to  you  in  the  other — admit  that  1  am  as  ignorant  of 
the  mouth  as  you  are  of  the  heart — and  tell  you  that 
abstract  from  the  confession  the  mouth  is  not  to  be 
conceived  of — and  therefore  that  the  confession  and 
the  mouth  are  one  and  the  same  thing — or  that  the 
man  has  no  mouth  : — would  this  be  reasoning  or  rant¬ 
ing  ? 

An  action  necessarily  presupposes  an  agent — and  an 
exercise  a  power,  or  principle,  or  a  something  which 
puts  forth  the  exercise.  If  then  there  be  no  heart  but 
moral  exercises,  of  what  are  they  predicabie  ?  If  you 
say  of  the  soul — 1  then  ask  of  what  faculty  of  the  soul  ? 
Moral  exercises  are  not  predicabie  of  the  natural  fac¬ 
ulties — perception — or  understanding — or  judgment ; 
or  memory,  or  conscience  : — What  then  is  it  in  the 
soul  of  man  that  loves  or  hates  God,  and  performs  ei¬ 
ther  holy  or  sinful  exercises; — if  there  be  no  principle 
abstract  from  exercise ; — if  there  be  not  a  heart  or 


i 


91 


moral  disposition,  from  which  moral  exercises  flow,  as 
streams  from  their  fountain,  or  fruit  from  the  tree  ? 

This  theory  appears  to  me  confounding  to  reason, 
and  rendering  the  instruction  of  Scripture  upon  the 
subject,  unintelligible.  As  specimens,  I  will  refer  you 
only  to  two  passages,  and  those  in  the  words  of  the 
Saviour.  “  Either  make  the  tree  good,  and  its  fruit 
good — or  else  make  the  tree  corrupt  and  its  fruit  cor¬ 
rupt — for  the  tree  is  known  by  its  fruit.  For  a  good 
tree  bringeth  not  forth  corrupt  fruit — neither  doth  a 
corrupt  tree  bring  forth  good  fruit.”  Matth.  xii.  33. 
Luke  vi.  43.  What  doth  the  Saviour  here  mean  by, 
“  the  tree  ?”  Is  it  the  same  as  the  fruit  ?  or  abstract 
the  fruit,  and  is  there  no  tree  remaining? 

Another  parallel  passage,  and  still  more  explicitly  in 
point,  is  in  Matthew  xv.  19.  “  Out  of  the  heart  pro¬ 

ceed  evil  thoughts,  murders,  adulteries,  fornications, 
thefts,  false  witnesses,  blasphemies.  Now,  are  these 
evil  thoughts,  and  wicked  actions,  the  heart  itself? 
Do  they  proceed  out  of  themselves  ?  Can  we  force  our¬ 
selves  to  believe  that  this  was  the  Saviour’s  meaning  ? 
He  here  evidently  teaches  that  ail  our  actions  flow 
from  an  internal  moral  principle  or  disposition,  which 
he  calls  the  heart.  If  then  there  be  such  a  thing  as  a 
heart  in  man,  as  the  fountain  of  moral  action  ;  and  this 
fountain  be  corrupt — there  is  occasion  and  scope  for  a 
change  of  heart  in  regeneration,  by  the  power  of  God, 
to  purify  this  corrupt  fountain  ;  and  the  instant  this  is 
done,  its  streams  will  be  pure. 

The  entire  dependence  of  the  sinner  on  the  power 
and  grace  of  God  to  change  his  heart,  has  no  legiti¬ 
mate  or  rational  tendency  as  you  assert,  to  cut  off  eve¬ 
ry  motive  to  exertion,  and  fortify  the  sinner  in  his  stu¬ 
pidity  and  neglect  of  salvation.  It  is  therefore  no 
disproof  of  the  doctrine.  It  is  not  because  he  believes, 
but  because  he  disbelieves  his  dependence,  that  he 
ever  makes  this  perverse  use  of  the  doctrine.  Let  hirn 
believe  and  realize  his  absolute  dependence  on  God 
for  salvation,  and  his  constant  exposure  to  bis  eternal 
wrath  ;  and  it  will  be  a  most  effectual  means  to  awak¬ 
en  and  alarm  him,  and  excite  him  to  exertion.  It  is  a 
confidence  in  his  own  sufficiency  to  convert  himself  at 


02 


any  future  and  more  convenient  season,  which  lulls 
him  to  sleep  in  present  security  and  cherishes  his  na¬ 
tural  sloth  and  stupidity. 

I  am  so  happy  as  to  agree  with  you  in  the  following 
articles  of  your  creed,  which  you  were  so  good  as  to 
state — but  it  makes  nothing  in  support  of  yourf  ob¬ 
jection.  *  • 

I  believe  that  God  deals  with  mankind,  not  as  with 
inert  matter  susceptible  only  of  physical  power — but  as 
being  what  they  are,  rational  creatures,  free  moral 
agents,  susceptible  of  motives,  and  capable  of  choice. — 
But  I  cannot  subscribe  to  what  immediately  follows  ; 
and  that  for  reasons  which  I  have  already  shown  at 
large,  and  need  not  repeat : — and  that  the  sinner's 
conversion  [regeneration]  is  effected  by  motives  addres¬ 
sed  to  his  reason,  and  his  love  of  happiness,  by  the  mor¬ 
al  means  of  persuasion,  without  any  physical  power . 
And  now  Sir  I  must  say  that  the  evidence  or  defini¬ 
tion  of  conversion  which  you  have  asserted  and  that 
too  in  unqualified  terms — that  a  change  of  purpose  is  a 
change  of  heart,  is  fallacious,  and  by  no  means  safe  as 
a  general  rule.  It  is  deceptive,  and  in  fact  untrue,  as 
can  be  easily  shown.  A  change  of  heart  will  induce  a 
change  of  purpose — but  a  change  of  purpose  is  not  a 
change  of  heart,  nor  any  certain  evidence  of  it — and  a 
convert  who  is  manufactured  in  this  way,  and  tested 
by  this  rule — one  who  lias  resolved  to  be  a  Christian, 
and  to  pursue  a  religious  life,  is  in  my  view  a  very 
suspicious  character.  How  many  sad  examples  of 
apostacy  are  found  among  those  whose  consciences 
have  been  greatly  awakened,  either  in  health  or  sick¬ 
ness,  but  especially  in  a  time  of  general  revival,  or 
the  near  and  appalling  prospect  of  approaching  death  ? 
They  are  persuaded  that  religion  is  preferable  to  sin 
— that,  the  Christian  hope  will  be  more  conducive  to 
their  happiness  than  the  objects  of  this  world,  and 
thence,  suddenly  and  in  the  full  confidence  of  their  own 
sufficiency,  resolve  to  be  Christians;  and  to  live  a 
new  life  of  piety — who  in  a  short  issue  have  proved 
themselves  to  be  but  stony  ground  hearers.  They 
have  no  root,  and  soon  wither.  Their  goodness  is 
as  the  morning  cloud,  and  as  the  early  dew  it  pas- 


* 


93 


seth  away.  Yet  these  are  the  characters,  whom,  in 
the  first  instance  of  their  good  resolutions,  you  do  not 
hesitate  to  pronounce  converted — real  Christians.  I 
cannot  but  remark  that  good  old  Joshua,  upon  a  similar 
occasion  held  a  very  different  language  to  the  Israel¬ 
ites  ;  and  was  far  from  making  the  work  of  conversion 
so  easy  and  cheap.  In  reply  to  their  zealous  and  con¬ 
fident  engagements  to  love  and  obey  God.  He  told 
them,  “  Ye  cannot  serve  the  Lord  for  he  is  a  holy 
God” — Joshua  xxiv.  19. 

At  the  foot  of  mount  Sinai,  we  must,  according  to 
your  rule,  pronounce  the  whole  congregation  of  Israel 
to  be  converted — for  they  resolved,  and  professed 
their  resolutions  to  love  and  obey  God.  “  And  they 
said  unto  Moses,  Go  thou  near  and  hear  all  that  the 
Lord  our  God  shall  say  ;  and  speak  thou  unto  us  all 
that  the  Lord  our  God  shall  speak  unto  thee,  and  we 
will  hear  it  and  do  it.”  Deut.  v.  27.  Well,  here  is  a 
good  purpose — a  good  resolution  and  promise  :  But 
was  this  profession  conclusive  evidence  of  vital  piety  ? 
Let  God  decide  the  question — for  his  judgment  is  ac¬ 
cording  to  truth — and  lie  hath  done  it  in  the  same  con¬ 
nection.  He  told  them  by  Moses — “  I  have  heard 
the  voice  of  the  words  of  this  people,  which  they 
have  spoken  unto  thee — they  have  well  said  all  that 
they  have  spoken.  O  that  there  were  such  an  heart  in 
them — Here  their  hypocrisy  comes  out  to  view  ;  and  it 
was  soon  demonstrated  by  a  memorable  fact — for  in 
less  than  forty  days  from  that  time,  this  zealous  peo¬ 
ple,  so  resolved  in  their  purpose,  and  so  ready  to 
promise  a  strict  and  persevering  obedience  to  the  true 
God — fell  back  to  idolatry,  and  made  and  worshipped 
a  golden  calf. 

Your  appeal  to  the  command  of  God  in  Ezekiel  xviii. 
34.  “  Make  you  a  new  heart  and  a  new  spirit,  for 

why  will  ye  die,  O  house  of  Israel” — is  irrelevant  in 
support  of  your  objection  to  the  divine  sovereignty. 
It  is  no  proof  of  the  agency  or  co-operation  of  the  sin¬ 
ner  in  changing  his  own  heart.  The  passage  is  a  me- 
tonomy,  where  the  cause  is  put  for  the  effect — or  re¬ 
generation  for  conversion  and  the  progress  of  sanctifi¬ 
cation.  Passages  of  parallel  instruction  are  those  in 


94 


Ezekiel  xxxiii.  11.  Phillip .  ii.  12.  “  Turn  ye,  turn  ye 
from  your  evil  ways — for  why  will  ye  die  O  house  of 
Israel” — Work  out  your  own  salvation  with  fear  and 
trembling,  for  it  is  God  that  worketh  in  you,  both  to 
will  and  to  do  of  his  good  pleasure.”  The  passage  ex¬ 
presses  nothing  beyond  that  summary  of  the  divine  law, 
“  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart. 
This  is  the  new  heart,  and  this  the  bounden  duty  of  all 
rational  creatures,  in  failure  of  which,  they  are  inexcus¬ 
ably  guilty  and  justly  condemned.  It  is  the  duty  of  eve¬ 
ry  one  to  have  a  holy  heart.  But  this  is  no  proof  that 
the  sinner  lias  any  disposition  to  obey  the  divine  com¬ 
mand — or  that  he  ever  will  do  it.  It  is  not  replying 
against  God,  but  echoing  the  language  of  his  word,  to 
say  that  the  sinner  will  not  come  unto  Christ  that  he 
might  have  life  ;  and  therefore  has  no  agency,  but  that 
of  opposition  in  the  renewal  of  his  own  heart.  The 
analogy  of  Scripture  fully  confirms  this  truth.  It  is 
the  uniform  testimony  of  the  word  of  God,  and  the 
experience  of  ail  who  are  savingly  taught  by  his  Spirit. 

Compare  this  passage  in  Ezekiel,  on  which  you  rely 
as  proof  of  human  agency  in  regeneration,  with  the 
few  following  passages,  and  we  need  not  set  Scripture 
at  war  with  itself,  i  shall  recite  them  without  com¬ 
ment.  They  need  no  explanation. 

“  Create  in  me  a  clean  heart,  O  God,  and  renew  a 
right  spirit  within  me.”  Psalm  li.  IL 

“Who  then  can  be  saved?  But  Jesus  beheld  them  and 
said  unto  them  with  men  this  is  impossible — but  with 
God  and  all  things  are  possible  ?  Matt.  xix.  25.  26. 

“  Which  were  born  not  of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of 
the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of  God .”  John 
i.  13. 

“  For  by  grace  ye  are  saved,  through  faith,  and  that 
not  of  yourselves,  it  is  the  gift  of  God.  Not  of  works, 
lest  any  man  should  boast.  We  are  his  workmanship, 
created  in  Christ  Jesus  unto  good  works,  which  God 
hath  before  ordained,  that  we  should  walk  in  them.” 
JEp/iesians  ii.  8. — 10. 

“  I  have  planted,  Apllos  watered,  but  God  gave  the 
increase.  So  then  neither  is  he  that  planted  any  thing , 
neither  he  that  watereth  ;  but  God  that  giveth  the  in¬ 
crease.”  1  Cor.  iii.  6.  7.  We  never  hear  Paul  as- 


95 


sert  that  he  had  changed  any  sinner’s  heart,  or  that 
the  sinner  had  changed  his  own  heart.  He  uniformly 
ascribed  the  excellency  of  the  power  to  God. 

On  this  very  principle  was  grounded  that  declara¬ 
tion  of  Christ.  “  No  man  can  come  unto  me  except  it 
were  given  unto  him  of  my  Father.”  John  vi.  65. 
This  trait  of  moral  character,  however,  is  the  very  ac¬ 
cent  of  his  guilt,  and  seals  his  ruin.  It  is  unbelief, 
the  grand  condemning  sin  of  the  world.  All  the  rea¬ 
sons  or  causes,  why  men  cannot  come  to  Christ, 
are  the  things  in  which  they  are  sinful.  It  is  not  an 
excusing,  self-justifying,  natural  inability.  We  say  of 
a  generous,  public  spirited  man,  he  cannot  be  guilty  of 
a  mean,  low  action.  The  greatness  of  his  soul,  and 
the  nobleness  of  his  diposition  null  not  admit  of  it. — 
Reverse  the  character,  and  we  may  see  the  propriety 
and  force,  of  the  Saviour’s  expression.  “  No  man 
can  come  unto  me  except  it  were  given  unto  him  of 
my  Father.”  It  is  by  reason  of  a  proud,  carnal  heart, 
contrary  to  God  and  the  gospel  plan,  that  men  cannot 
come  to  Christ.  Such  an  exalted  act  of  virtue  is  above 
moral  character — for  it  is  a  self-emptying — soul  hum¬ 
bling  act.  They  therefore  cannot  perform  it,  except 
God  give  them  such  a  heart — a  humble  and  holy  tem¬ 
per  of  mind. 

The  last  paragraph  of  your  remarks,  seems  to  need 
particular  attention,  and  to  my  feelings  is  peculiarly 
painful.  After  confidently  asserting  that  the  sinner, 
whom  you  had  persuaded  to  become  a  Christian,  had 
changed  his  own  heart,  you  go  on  to  say — And  what 
matter  is  it,  what  were  the  operating  motive — whether 
it  were  love  or  hatred ,  hope  or  fear ,  or  whether  accom¬ 
panied  with  divine  influence  or  not,  if  the  important 
change  he  hut  accomplished  ?  That  a  man  of  intelli¬ 
gence  and  reflection  should  adopt  and  explicitly  avow 
a  sentiment  so  dangerous,  and  which,  were  it  upon  a 
subject  less  important  than  the  salvation  of  the  soul, 
would  appear  too  ludicrous  for  sober  argument ;  is  to 
me  a  matter  of  surprise  and  regret.  But  my  dear 
Philemon,  I  am  too  deeply  penetrated  with  grief,  to 
be  sportive  or  sarcastic.  My  desire  is  not  to  reproach 
but  to  convince.  For  this  purpose,  then,  I  ask  you 


96 


to  review  the  subject  candidly,  and  in  the  light  of  di¬ 
vine  truth.  Look  at  the  man  whom  you  have  persua¬ 
ded  to  become  a  Christian,  and  whose  heart,  by  the 
influence  of  selfish  motives,  you  so  confidently  affirm 
that  you  have  changed  ;  and  tell  me  what  sort  of  a 
Christian  he  is.  Is  he  a  New  Testament  Christian — 
a  self-denied  disciple — one  whom  Paul  would  have 
embraced  as  a  beloved  brother  in  Christ?  What  is  it 
to  be  a  Christian  ?  Is  it  not  to  possess  the  benevolent 
spirit  of  Christ — to  deny  self — to  love  God,  and  to  be 
actuated  by  a  supreme  regard  to  his  glory  ?  This  is  the 
new  man  produced  by  the  sinner’s  change  of  heart  in 
regeneration.  Who  is  the  author  of  this  change,  we 
need  not  stop  to  inquire,  any  longer  than  to  open  the 
Bible. — “  It  is  the  gift  of  God.  We  are  his  workman¬ 
ship,  created  in  Christ  Jesus  unto  good  works.”  I 
charitably  presume,  Sir,  that  you  was  not  aware  of 
the  irreligious  nature  of  the  sentiment,  that  it  is  imma¬ 
terial  by  whose  agency  the  work  of  regeneration  is 
wrought,  or  whether  accompanied  by  divine  influence 
or  not,  provided  the  important  change  be  accomplish¬ 
ed.  Is  this  Scriptural  ?  Is  it  a  doctrine  according  to 
Godliness? — the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints, 
and  embraced  by  the  church  of  Christ,  from  the  time 
of  the  apostles  to  the  present  day  ?  Does  it  not  con¬ 
tradict  all  Christian  experience,  and  the  feelings  of 
everv  humble  believer  in  Jesus?  Your  Theorem,  is 
built  on  this  selfish  principle,  that  the  creature  is  his 
own  last  end — that  the  sinner’s  salvation  has  no  high¬ 
er  ultimate  end,  than  his  own  happiness  ;  and  there¬ 
fore  if  this  end  be  but  accomplished,  or  ensured,  it  is 
indifferent  by  what  means  or  by  whose  agency.  This 
doctrine  is  in  safe  keeping  with  such  a  principle,  as  a 
natural  and  necessary  consequence,  and  it  can  How 
from  none  other.  But,  my  dear  friend,  does  this  sen¬ 
timent'  manifest  a  due  regard  to  the  rights  of  Deity  ? 
Does  it  humble  the  sinful  creature,  and  give  God  the 
throne  ?  Has  the  glory  of  God,  no  claim  in  this  great¬ 
est  of  his  works,  the  restoration  of  the  poor,  miserable, 
ruined  sinner  to  holiness,  to  happiness,  and  to  heav¬ 
en  ?  Has  he  resigned  this  claim,  or  consented  to  divide 
it  with  his  creatures  since  he  solemnly  announced — 


97 


“  For  my  own  sake ,  even  for  my  own  sake ,  will  I  do  it, 
and  I  will  not  give  my  glory  to  another?”  Isaiah  xlviii. 
11.  To  the  praise  of  the  glory  of  his  grace,  wherein  he 
hath  made  us  accepted  in  the  Beloved.”  Ephesians  i. 
6.  Now  how  does  it  appear  in  the  light  of  these 
Scriptures,  to  attach  no  importance  or  necessity  to 
God’s  agency  in  regeneration — to  leave  his  glory 
wholly  out  of  the  account,  and  say,  what  matter  is  it 
whether  it  he  accompanied  with  divine  influence  or  not , 
if  the  important  change  he  hut  accomplished  ? — It  is 
the  most  solemn  trifling — invading  the  divine  preroga¬ 
tive,  and  treating  the  office  of  the  Holy  Spirit  with 
great  and  awful  disrespect. 

Furthermore,  you  view  it  of  no  importance,  what 
be  the  operating  motive,  whether  love  or  hatred,  fear 
or  hope.  In  this  you  are  speaking  of  regeneration, 
and  not  of  conviction  or  awakening.  And  now  without, 
recurring  to  the  fact,  which  may  be  abundantly  shown, 
that  means  have  no  effect  in  changing  the  heart — I  ask 
you  to  look  at  the  inconsistency  which  you  have  pre¬ 
sented  for  truth — a  selfish  motive  as  the  means  of 
changing  the  heart,  and  producing  holy  affections  : — 
how  preposterous  the  idea  !  How  pointedly  condemn¬ 
ed  by  the  Saviour’s  instruction— “  Neither  can  a  cor¬ 
rupt  tree  bring  forth  good  fruit — for  of  thorns  men  do 
not  gather  figs — nor  of  a  bramble-bush  gather  they 
grapes.”  No  comment  is  necessary.  Make  the  ap¬ 
plication  for  yourself,  and  beware  that  you  build  not 
your  house  upon  the  sand. 

I  close  this  long  letter,  with  a  short  reply  to  that 
hacknied  cavil  of  the  ungodly — you  can  and  you  cant — 
you  will  and  you  wont,&cc.  “Wo  unto  him  that  striveth 
with  his  Maker.  Let  the  potsherd  strive  with  the  pot¬ 
sherds  of  the  earth.  Shall  he  that  contendeth  with 
the  Almighty  instruct  him  ?  He  that  reproveth  God, 
let  him  answer  it.” 

Your  affectionate  friend, 

Aristarchus. 


9 


LETTER  VIII. 


Dear  Sir, 

The  next  objection  which  you  have  brought,  and 
which  I  am  now  to  consider  you  express  in  the  follow¬ 
ing  terms. — 

“  These  doctrines  of  our  absolute  dependence,  and 
of  the  universal  divine  agency,  must  be  false,  wicked 
and  dangerous,  because  they  represent  God  as  the 
author  of  sin.  This  is  repugnant  to  every  right  notion 
of  Deity  which  we  can  gather  from  Scripture  or  rea¬ 
son.  We  read  in  our  Bibles,  James  i.  13,  14,  “Let 
no  man  say  when  he  is  tempted,  I  am  tempted  of  God, 
for  God  cannot  be  tempted  of  evil,  neither  tempteth  he 
any  man  ;  but  every  man  is  tempted,  when  he  is  drawn 
away  with  his  own  lust  and  enticed.”  Therefore  God 
cannot  be  the  author  of  sin,  nor  his  agency  concerned 
in  effecting  it.” 

1  If  by  God’s  being  the  author  of  sin  be  meant,  the 
actor  or  committer  of  it,  I  equally  reject  the  doctrine 
as  absurd  and  blasphemous  :  but  if  the  word  be  design¬ 
ed  to  signify  nothing  more  than  the  universal  agency 
of  God,  or  that  sin  is  an  effect  of  which  the  divine 
agency  is  the  cause  ; — this  would  set  the  objection  in 
a  materially  different  point  of  light.  This  doctrine  is 
a  consequence  fairly  and  regularly  drawn  from  es¬ 
tablished  premises.  It  is  in  strict  and  inseparable  con¬ 
nexion  with  the  doctrine  of  absolute  dependence  :  es¬ 
tablished  upon  the  firmest  basis,  and  capable  of  abun¬ 
dant  proof.  It  stands  supported  by  the  united  tes¬ 
timony  of  reasonf  and-  scripture.  If  this  can  be  ful¬ 
ly  shown  to  the  eye  of  the  candid  inquirer,  the  heavy 
charge  brought  against  it,  of  being  a  wicked  and  dan¬ 
gerous  doctrine,  is  unfounded  and  misapplied. 

The  only  point  now  in  question  is  the  universal  di¬ 
vine  agency.  If  this  be  a  true  doctrine  it  is  consistent 


99 


with  the  holiness  of  God — and  instead  of  being  wicked 
and  dangerous,  is  scriptural,  sound,  and  salutary. 

The  testimony  of  Scripture  is  the  authority  on 
which  I  rely  ;  and  whether  the  doctrine  of  universal 
divine  agency,  as  the  effecting  cause  of  all  events  be 
not  therein  taught,  the  following  passages  out  of  the 
many  in  point,  are  adduced  to  determine,  and  cheer¬ 
fully  submitted  to  candid  and  critical  investigation. 

See  first,  the  divine  commission  to  Moses,  when 
he  is  charged  with  the  command  to  Pharaoh  to  liberate 
the  people  of  Israel.  Exodus  vii.  2— -5.  “  Thou  shall 

speak  all  that  I  command  thee,  and  Aaron  thy  brother 
shall  speak  unto  Pharaoh,  that  he  send  the  children  of 
Israel  out  of  his  land.  And  I  will  harden  Pharaoh’s 
heart,  and  multiply  my  signs  and  wonders  in  the  land 
of  Egypt.  But  Pharaoh  shall  not  hearken  unto  you, 
that  I  may  lay  my  hand  upon  Egypt,  and  bring  forth 
mine  armies,  and  my  people  the  children  of  Israel  out 
of  the  land  of  Egypt ;  by  great  judgments  ;  and  the 
Egyptians  shall  know  that  I  am  the  Lord.” 

This  clearly  shows  that  it  was  the  design  of  God 
that  Pharaoh  should  not  obey  his  command  ;  and  not 
only  so,  but  that  the  divine  agency  was  the  effecting 
cause  of  his  disobedience — “  I  will  harden  Pharaoh’s 
heart — and  that  the  great  and  ultimate  end  designed 
to  be  effected  by  the  means  of  Pharaoh’s  disobedience 
and  the  consequent  plagues  sent  upon  him,  was  a  visi¬ 
ble  and  distinguished  display  of  the  greatness,  power 
and  glory  of  Israel’s  God,  as  the  only  true  God.  “And 
the  Egyptians  shall  know  that  I  am  the  Lord.” 

We  iind  it  thus  declared  (Exod.  ix.  12.)  “  And  the 
Lord  hardened  the  heart  of  Pharaoh,  and  he  hearkened 
not  unto  them,  as  the  Lord  had  spoken  unto  Moses.” 
And  the  same  thing  is  repeatedly  affirmed  in  the  his¬ 
tory  of  Pharaoh. 

In  the  16th  verse  of  this  chapter,  God  declares  to 
Pharaoh,  “  For  this  cause  have  I  raised  thee  up,  for 
to  show  in  thee  my  power,  and  that  my  name  may  be 
declared  throughout  the  earth.”  And  the  apostle 
Paul,  (Rom.  ix.)  quotes  this  passage,  and  from  God’s 
design  respecting  Pharaoh,  argues  and  asserts  his 
sovereign  and  universal  agency.  “  Therefore  hath  he 


100 


mercy  on  whom  he  will  have  mercy,  and  whom  he 
will  he  hardeneth. 

In  1.  Samuel  ii.  25.  After  Eli  had  reproved  his 
sons  for  their  wickedness,  it  is  said  of  them,  “Notwith¬ 
standing  they  harkened  not  unto  the  voice  of  their  fa¬ 
ther,  because  the  Lord  would  slay  them.”  This  repre¬ 
sents  the  divine  purpose  as  the  cause  of  their  incorri¬ 
gibleness.  The  relation  between  cause  and  effect  ne- 
cessarily  implies  efficiency.  It  was  the  purpose  of 
God  to  cut  them  off,  and  therefore  he  continued  their 
impenitency. 

Rehoboam’s  wicked  rejection  of  the  old  men’s  coun¬ 
sel,  by  means  of  which  the  ten  tribes  revolted  from 
the  house  of  David,  is  represented  in  the  same  point  of 
light.  For  when  Rehoboam  had  raised  an  army,  and  was 
proceeding  to  reduce  the  rebellious  tribes  by  force  of 
arms,  he  wras  forbidden  by  the  prophet,  saying  “  thus 
saitli  the  Lord,  ye  shall  not  go  up  nor  fight  against 
your  brethren,  the  children  of  Israel.  Return  every 
man  to  his  house,  for  this  thing  is  from  me.”  Thus 
we  see  that  God  designed,  and  therefore  effected  this 
wickedness  of  Rehoboam  and  all  its  consequences. 

In  the  case  of  David’s  grievous  sin  in  numbering 
Israel,  we  find  another  passage  directly  in  point.  2. 
Sam.  xxiv.  1.  “And  again  the  anger  of  the  Lord  was 
kindled  against  Israel,  and  he  moved  David  against 
them,  to  say,  Go  number  Israel  and  Judah.” 

In  the  141st  Psalm,  wre  find  David  uttering  the  fol¬ 
lowing  words,  and  that  too  in  a  solemn  address  to  the 
Most  High — Incline  not  my  heart,  to  any  evil  thing, 
to  practice  wicked  works  with  men  that  work  iniqui¬ 
ty.”  Is  not  this  a  full  acknowledgement,  that  God 
does  incline  the  heart  to  evil  ? 

Isaiah  xlv.  7.  I  form  the  light,  and  I  create  dark¬ 
ness — I  make  peace,  and  I  create  evil — I  the  Lord  do 
all  these  things.” 

Ezekiel  xiv.  9.  “  And  if  the  prophet  be  deceived, 

when  he  hath  spoken  a  thing,  I  the  Lord  have  deceived 
that  prophet ,  and  I  will  stretch  out  my  hand  and  des¬ 
troy  him  from  the  midst  of  my  people  Israel.” 

What  do  we  mean  when  we  pray,  “  Lead  us  not 
into  temptation?” — unless  we  acknowledge  that  it  is 


101 

/ 

God  who  leads  us  into  temptation?  If  it  be  replied 
that  this  respects  only  the  outward  circumstances  of 
the  man,  and  is  simply  a  petition  that  God  would  so 
order  things  in  his  providence,  that  he  might  not  be 
brought  into  a  situation  of  exposedness  to  temptation; 
— still  the  divine  agency  is  acknowledged,  and  that  God 
does  and  may  consistently  lead  the  creature  into  such 
a  situation,  as  to  outward  circumstances,  as  will  effect 
wickedness,  as  its  necessary  result.  But  how  this  con¬ 
struction  furnishes  any  salvo  to  the  divine  character  is 
for  the  objector  to  show.  Should  I  knowingly  lead  a 
man  into  such  circumstances,  that  his  losing  his  life  by 
the  hand  of  robbers  would  certainly  follow — my  skirts 
would  be  stained  with  his  blood.  David,  we  know, 
incurred  the  guilt  of  murder,  by  his  orders  to  Joab,  to 
expose  Uriah  in  the  forefront  of  the  battle  to  the  sword 
of  the  enemy.  The  fact  is,  if  any  salvo  be  needed,  it 
will  be  impossible  to  find  one. 

This  may,  perhaps,  be  the  most  proper  place,  in  im¬ 
mediate  connection  with  the  last  mentioned  text,  to  ex¬ 
amine  the  application  of  that  passage  in  James  i.  13, 
14.  which  you  bring  to  disprove  the  doctrine  in  ques¬ 
tion.  “Let  no  man  say  when  he  is  tempted,  I  am 
tempted  of  God — for  God  cannot  be  tempted  of  evil, 
neither  tempteth  he  any  man — but  every  man  is  tempt¬ 
ed,  when  he  is  drawn  away  of  his  own  lust  and  en¬ 
ticed.” 

The  right  understanding  and  application  of  this  pas¬ 
sage,  materially  depends  upon  the  knowledge  of  the 
true  sense  of  the  word, — tempt .  If  to  tempt,  be  the 
same  as  to  create — or  the  latter  in  any  instance  imply 
the  same  moral  character  in  the  agent,  and  this  can  be 
made  to  appear,  then  the  objection  must  be  acknowl¬ 
edged  as  supported. 

To  ascertain  this  matter,  I  will  venture  to  lay  down 
a  definition  of  the  word  tempt ,  agreeably  to  its  com¬ 
monly  received,  and  legitimate  sense  ;  and  you  will 
kindly  correct  if  I  err. — 

To  tempt  is  to  hold  up  objects  in  false  colours ,  to  ans¬ 
wer  a  wicked  end — or,  to  seek  by  means  of  moral  sua¬ 
sion  falsely  applied ,  to  allure  the  mind  of  another  to 
the  commission  of  evil. — 


9* 


If  this  be  a  just  definition,  it  affords  us  three  distin¬ 
guishing  marks  of  temptation,  as  it  respects  the  tempt¬ 
er — viz,  the  manner — the  means,  and  the  end — or, 

a  false  view  of  objects — 

by  the  means  of  moral  suasion — 

to  effect  a  wicked  end. 

All  these  are  ascribable  to  the  tempter,  and  consti¬ 
tute  the  nature  of  a  temptation.  In  support  of  this 
definition,  take,  as  an  example  for  illustration,  the 
temptation  of  the  grand  adversary  which  issued  in  the 
fall  of  our  first  parents.  The  Most  High  had  made 
this  express  declaration  to  Adam — “of  every  tree  in 
the  garden,  thou  mayest  freely  eat — but  of  the  tree  of 
knowledge  of  good  and  evil,  thou  shall  not  eat  of  it,  for 
in  the  day  thou  eatest  thereof,  thou  snail  surely  die.” 
Now  look  at  the  temptation  which  led  to  the  breach  of 
this  high  and  positive  command  of  God.  The  outward 
object  of  allurement,  which  the  tempter  used,  as  the 
means  of  persuasion,  was  the  forbidden  fruit.  This 
was  calculated  to  entice."  “The  woman  saw  that  the 
tree  was  good  for  food,  and  that  it  was  pleasant  to  the 
eyes,  and  a  tree  to  be  desired  to  make  one  wise.” — 

This  object  wras  held  up  in  a  false  light  by  the  tempt¬ 
er,  and  a  known  falsehood  uttered  in  his  denying  the 
divine  command,  and  the  threatened  consequences  of 
disobedience.  These  too  the  woman  well  knew  and 
declared  to  the  serpent,  after  he  had  proposed  the 
temptation — but  he  told  her  in  reply— “  Ye  shall  not 
surely  die , — for  God  doth  know,  that  in  the  day  ye  eat 
thereof,  your  eyes  shall  be  opened,  and  ye  shall  be  as 
gods  knowing  good  and  evil.” — that  is,  God  has  but 
deceived  you  in  this  matter — there  are  no  such  conse¬ 
quences  connected  with  your  eating  this  fruit. 

Lastly,  with  respect  to  the  design  of  the  tempter, 
none  can  doubt,  that  the  end  which  he  had  in  view 
was  to  dishonor  God  by  the  disobedience  of  our  first 
parents. 

By  this  example  of  temptation,  which  was  introduc¬ 
tory  to,  and  a  just  specimen  of  all  others,  the  proposed 
definition  of  tempting  appears  fully  established — viz. 
to  hold  up  objects  in  false  colours,  to  answer  a  wicked 
end — or,  to  seek  by  means  of  moral  suasion,  falsely 


103 


applied,  to  allure  the  mind  of  another  to  the  commis¬ 
sion  of  sin. 

This  will  lead  us  to  a  right  understanding  of  the  cit- 
ed  passage  of  the  apostle  Jamss.  Let  no  man  say, 
when  he  is  tempted,  I  am  tempted  of  God,  &c.”  That 
is  to  say,  let  no  man  charge  the  guilt  of  his  sin  upon 
his  Maker — for  it  is  morally  and  infinitely  impossible, 
that  God  should  be  tempted  to  evil  himself,  or  tempt 
his  creatures  to  it.  He  can  neither  suffer  nor  offer  an 
imposition.  On  the  contrary  he  has  exhibited  his  char¬ 
acter  in  its  true  light,  and  made  the  rule  of  duty  known, 
and  so  plain  and  intelligible,  as  to  render  the  sinner 
perfectly  inexcusable.  It  was  so  in  his  dealings  with 
the  first  human  sinner,  and  it  is  equally  true  of  all  his 
posterity.  God  did  not  tempt  Adam  to  sin.  He  clear¬ 
ly  revealed  to  him  the  rule  of  duty,  and  never  contra¬ 
dicted  or  disguised  his  own  command.  And  his  gov- 
eminent  has  been  uniform  in  every  age  of  the  world. 
God  never  persuades  any  creature  to  sin — but  every 
man  is  tempted,  when  he  is  drawn  away  of  his  own 
lust  and  enticed.  When  any  man  sins  in  complying 
with  a  temptation — the  action  is  the  genuine  fruit  of 
his  own  corrupt  and  evil  heart,  and  the  guilt  is  his 
own.  But  does  it  thence  follow,  that  because  God 
does  not  tempt  men,  nor  act  the  part  of  Satan,  that, 
therefore  his  agency  cannot  be  concerned  in  the  pro¬ 
duction  of  moral  evil,  as  the  originating  cause,  and  he 
have  a  holy  and  good  end  in  view  ? 

That  God  does  move  the  heart  to  sin,  and  yet  Satan 
tempt  to  the  same  sin,  we  have,  in  the  history  of  Da¬ 
vid,  a  striking  example  in  proof.  We  read  that  the 
anger  of  the  Lord  was  kindled  against  Israel,  and  he 
moved  David  against  them  to  say  go  number  Israel 
and  Judah.  2  Samuel  xxiv.  1.  And  in  1  Chron.  xxi. 
1,  we  read,  And  satan  stood  up  against  Israel,  and 
provoked  (that  is  tempted ,)  David  to  number  Israel.” 
Now  both  these  were  true,  both  consistent.  God  mov¬ 
ed  David  to  this  sin,  and  satan  tempted  him  to  it  ;  and 
yet  in  neither  \yas  God  tempted,  nor  did  he  tempt  Da¬ 
vid  to  sin. 

The  fall  of  man  with  all  its  circumstances  and  con¬ 
sequences  was  the  fulfilment  of  God’s  eternal  plan. 


Satan  meant  it  for  evil,  and  designed  to  defeat  the  di¬ 
vine  purpose — but  God  meant  it  for  good.  He  acted 
with  the  most  benevolent  view.  It  was  designed  to 
effect  the  greatest  possible  good,  and  make  the  fullest 
display  of  his  transcendency  excellent  character.  The 
infinite  glory  of  redeeming  mercy  and  love,  was  the 
ultimate  end  of  God  in  the  fall  of  man. — But  I  now 
return  from  this  digression  and  resume  the  thread  of 
my  former  argument,  in  the  line  of  scripture  proof. 

Saith,  the  apostle  Paul  “  Not  that  we  are  sufficient 
of  ourselves  to  think  any  thing  as  of  ourselves — our 
sufficiency  is  of  God.”  This  is  not  consistent  with 
the  idea,  that  we  are  deoendent  on  God  only  for  our 
being  and  powers,  and  independent  in  our  exercises  ; 
but  is  a  direct  denial  of  it.  He  furthermore  says  that 
God  “  worketh  all  things  after  the  counsel  of  his  own 
will.”  How  this  is  consistent  with  his  being,  in  re¬ 
spect  to  the  impenitent  sinner,  only  an  almighty  spec¬ 
tator,  I  am  unable  to  conceive — or  how  any  of  the 
passages  which  I  have  cited,  or  any  others  in  sacred 
writ,  give  any  countenance  to  the  idea  that  sin  takes 
place  by  the  divine  permission  merely,  is  equally  diffi¬ 
cult  to  be  apprehended.  In  all,  his  positive  agency  is 
either  clearly  expressed,  or  necessarily  implied.  You 
must,  my  dear  friend  in  a  minute’s  reflection  feel  your¬ 
self  involved,  by  your  own  principles,  in  the  very  dif¬ 
ficulty,  of  which  you  complain,  equally  irreconcilable 
with  the  divine  purity.  Upon  your  hypothesis,  the 
very  existence  of  sin  would  be  an  argument  to  disprove 
the  holiness  of  God,  as  much  as  his  agency  in  effect¬ 
ing  it.  For  he  certainly  foreknew  that  sin  would  take 
place — he  was  fully  able  to  have  prevented  it,  had  he 
seen  fit — but  he  did  not.  From  his  permitting  it 
therefore,  it  is  clear,  that  all  things  considered,  he  was 
willing  it  should  take  place.  But  how  does  this  solve 
the  difficulty  in  relation  to  the  divine  character,  which 
you  complain  of,  and  charge  upon  the  doctrine  in  con¬ 
troversy  ?  If  it  be  inconsistent  with  the  character  of 
God  to  cause  sin  by  his  own  positive  agency — why  is 
it  not  equally  so  for  him  to  will  or  permit  the  exist¬ 
ence  of  it?  If  the  former  does  not  consist  with  the  di¬ 
vine  holiness,  how  can  the  latter — for  they  are  both  in 


105 


reality  the  same  ?  If  it  be  right  for  me  to  be  willing 
that  a  certain  thing  should  be  done  ;  it  will  be  right  for 
me  to  be  active  in  the  doing  of  it.  And  on  the  other 
hand  it  argues  an  equal  degree  of  moral  turpitude,  to 
be  willing  that  another  should  do  a  criminal  action,  as 
though,  I  should  myself  actually  cause  it  to  be  done. 

But  this  distinction  between  willing  and  effecting  in 
relation  to  the  Divine  Being,  is  idle  and  unfounded — 
there  is  no  distinction  to  be  made  between  them. — 
God’s  willing  a  thing  is  his  effecting  it — for  “  he  doeth 
according  to  his  will.”  His  will  and  his  agency  are 
undistinguishable.  It  is  impossible  to  form  any  other 
idea  of  God’s  power,  but  as  the  exercise  of  his  will : 
“He  doth  according  to  his  will  in  the  armies  of  heav¬ 
en,  and  among  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth.”  Daniel 
iv.  35. 

But  the  merits  of  this  and  of  your  former  objection, 
answrered  in  my  6th  letter,  rest  on  the  same  ground, 
and  both  must  stand  or  fall  together.  Intrinsically 
they  are  the  same — the  object  only  is  changed,  or  the 
order  transversed.  That  was,  whether  man  can  be  ab¬ 
solutely  dependent,  and  yet  be  a  sinner — this  is  wheth¬ 
er  he  can  be  thus  dependent,  and  yet  God  be  holy  ? 
And  the  difference  beteen  them  them  is  merely  circum¬ 
stantial.  If  the  former  question  be  established  in  the 
affirmative,  the  latter  is  equally.  The  connection  is 
as  close  as  between  these  two  ideas — If  man  be  a 
creature  of  God — then  God  is  the  Creator  of  man  ; — 
for  the  absolute  dependence  of  the  one,  and  the  univer¬ 
sal  agency  of  the  other  stand  in  the  same  mutual  and 
inseperable  relation. 

That  absolute  dependence  is  consistent  with  the 
highest  perfection  of  moral  agency  has  been  argued 
from  reason.  It  becomes  us  however  to  notice  the 
concurring  authority  of  scripture ; — .and  sufficient  to 
our  purpose  is  presented  in  the  passages  already  cited. 

The  Lord  hardened  Pharaoh’s  heart,  yet  Pharaoh 
was  most  criminal  in  his  disbedience  to  the  divine  com¬ 
mand.  By  his  incorrigibleness  under  the  repeated  and 
awful  strokes  of  God’s  correcting  hand,  he  wras  made 
a  subject  of  the  most  signal  displays  of  the  divine  ven- 


10G 


gence,  and  held  up  to  all  after  ages  as  a  monument  of 
God’s  holy  displeasure. 

By  the  sword  of  the  Philistines  God  slew  the  wick¬ 
ed  sons  of  Eli,  for  their  sacriligious  impieties. 

Rehoboam  for  his  despotic  measures,  was  punished 
with  the  revolt  and  loss  of  ten  twelfth’s  of  his  king¬ 
dom. 

The  Lord  moved  David  to  number  Israel,  and  for 
that  very  offence  was  so  displeased,  that  he  sent  the 
pestilence,  and  swept  off  seventy  thousands  of  his  sub¬ 
jects  in  three  days. 

And  for  the  guilt  of  the  deceived  prophet,  God 
saith,  “  I  will  stretch  out  my  hand  and  destroy  him 
from  the  midst  of  my  people  Israel.” 

We  must  therefore  believe  that  the  agency  of  God 
in  effecting  the  sins  of  the  creature  is  consistent  with 
the  infinite  holiness  of  his  character. 

Still,  however,  the  conviction  may  not  be  complete 
— or  the  consistency  may  be  believed,  and  yet  not  ap¬ 
prehended.  Still  the  question,  how  can  these  things 
be,  may  remain  a  serious  difficulty  in  the  mind  of  the 
conscientious  inquirer.  I  am  therefore  induced  to  pur¬ 
sue  the  sublime  and  awful  subject,  and  offer  the  fruits 
of  my  painful  researches  to  the  consideration  of  the 
honest  and  candid  examiner.  The  object  sought  is 
worthy  of  our  attention,  time  and  toil.  Clear  satisfac¬ 
tion  and  rational  establishment  in  the  truth  of  the  im¬ 
portant  inquiry  before  us,  will  outweigh  the  possession 
of  the  world. 

The  mode  of  the  divine  operation,  or  how  “God 
workcth  all  things” — we  pretend  not  to  determine. 
H  is  ways  are  above  to  us.  This  is  one  of  the  deep  things 
of  God,  unsearchable  perhaps  to  all  creatures.  But, 
that  he  thus  does,  is  abundantly  declared  in  his  word — 
and  how  the  universal  agency  of  God,  as  it  respects 
the  production  of  evil  can  be  consistent  with  the  holi¬ 
ness  of  his  character  is  now  the  object  of  inquiry. 

All  the  difficulties  which  darken  our  path  of  inquiry 
on  this  subject,  arise,  as  I  humbly  conceive,  from  the 
three  following  sources, 

1.  Our  not  properly  distinguishing  between  the  di¬ 
vine  agency,  and  our  own  exercises. 


\ 


107 


2.  By  adopting  and  arguing  from  this  erroneous  prin¬ 
ciple — that  the  nature  of  the  effect  is  always  and  ne¬ 
cessarily,  of  the  same  kind  with  that  of  its  cause. 

3.  By  forming  a  judgmentupon  a  narrow  and  partial 
view  of  things. 

Were  we  set  right  in  these  several  respects,  I  think 
the  difficulty  might  be  easily  removed,  and  the  desired 
consistency  appear.  Let  us  then  carefully  examine  the 
subject,  in  the  application  of  these  principles. 

1.  That  our  not  properly  distinguishing  between  the 
agency  of  God,  and  the  act  of  the  creature  is  a  source 
of  difficulty  in  understanding  this  doctrine.  Here  is 
a  just  and  important  distinction,  absolutely  necessary 
to  the  right  investigation  of  truth — for  the  act  of  the 
creature  is  not  the  act  of  God,  nor  the  reverse.  Though 
the  creature  be  wholly  dependent  upon  the  divine  agen¬ 
cy  for  all  his  exercises,  yet  they  are  his  own  actions, 
as  really  and  fully  as  if  he  were  perfectly  indepen¬ 
dant.  His  dependence,  as  has  been  shown,  consists 
with  the  freedom  of  his  will  and  his  moral  agency. 
He  acts  choice  in  every  thing  he  does.  Therefore  his 
actions  are  his  own,  and  distinct  from  the  agency  of 
God  by  which  they  are  produced.  So  that  with  re¬ 
spect  to  the  same  effect,  God  is  perfectly  holy,  and  the 
creature  altogether  criminal  and  inexcusably  guilty. 
This  too  is  the  instruction  of  Scripture.  The  Lord 
hardened  Pharaoh’s  heart,  and  yet  it  is  repeatedly  de¬ 
clared  that  Paraoh  hardened  his  own  heart.  This  was 
his  guilt — but  it  argued  no  unholiness  in  God.  There¬ 
fore  their  actions  in  hardening  were  distinct. 

The  Lord  moved  David  to  number  Israel — and  yet 
David  moved  himself.  He  acted  the  free  choice  of  his 
own  proud  heart.  But  the  severity  of  his  punishment 
proves  that  God  was  holy  in  moving  David  to  number 
Israel.  The  same  truth  also  appears  in  the  case  of  the 
deceived  prophet,  by  the  awful  threatening  which  God 
denounced  against  him. 

It  is  the  motive  which  stamps  the  moral  character  of 
an  action.  In  both,  the  act  of  God  and  the  act  of  the 
creature  are  not  only  distinct,  but  in  the  case  of  the 
sinner,  perfectly  opposed,  in  the  production  of  the 
same  effect.  God’s  motive  is  the  greatest  general 


108 


good,  and  lie  has  his  own  glory  ultimately  in  view. 
Self  gratification  is  the  sinner’s  motive,  and  his  own 
private  interest  exclusively  in  opposition  to  the  glory 
of  God,  and  the  good  of  his  system,  is  his  last  end. 

This  truth  is  beautifully  and  strikingly  illustrated  by 
the  example  of  the  Assyrian  monarch  Sennacherib, 
and  what  is  recorded  of  him — “  O  Assyrian,  the  rod  of 
mine  anger,  and  the  staff  in  their  hand  is  mine  indig¬ 
nation.  I  will  send  him  against  an  hypocritical  nation, 
and  against  the  people  of  my  wrath  will  I  give  him  a 
charge,  to  take  the  spoil,  and  to  take  the  prey,  and  to 
tread  them  down  like  the  mire  of  the  streets.  How* 
beit  he  meaneth  not  so,  neither  doth  his  heart  think 
so,  but  it  is  in  his  heart  to  destroy  and  cut  off  nations 
not  a  few  &c.  Wherefore  it  shall  come  to  pass,  when 
the  Lord  hath  performed  his  whole  work  upon  mount 
Zion  and  on  Jerusalem,  I  will  punish  the  fruit  of  the 
stout  heart  of  the  king  of  Assyria,  and  the  glory  of 
his  high  looks.”  Isaiah  x.  5 — vii.  12. 

H  ere  we  see  that  the  design  of  God  for  which  he 
sent  Sennacherib  against  Israel,  was  to  punish  his  peo¬ 
ple  for  their  hypocrisy  and  wickedness  ; — but  the  mo¬ 
tive  of  Sennacherib  was  intirely  diverse,  and  opposed 
to  the  end  of  God  — he  aimed  at  nothing  but  his  own 
power  and  aggrandizement,  by  the  ravages  and  spoils 
of  conquest.  He  meant  not  so.  Therefore,  after  God 
had  used  the  rod,  he  burnt  it.  He  declares  his  deter¬ 
mination  to  punish  Sennacherib  for  this  murderous 
and  bloody  conduct,  after  he  had  effected  by  him  the 
designs  of»his  providence  in  correcting  and  humbling 
his  covenant  people.  The  reproof  given  to  Senna¬ 
cherib  in  the  15th  verse,  for  his  vain  confidence  in  his 
own  sufficiency,  expresses  his  absolute  dependence  in 
bold  and  striking  figures.  “Shall  the  axe  boast  itself 
against  him  that  heweth  therewith  ?  or  shall  the  saw 
magnify  itself  against  him  that  shaketh  it?  As  if  the 
rod  should  shake  itself  against  them  that  lift  it  up,  or 
as  if  the  staff  should  lift  up  itself  as  if  it  were  no  wood.” 

But  this  truth  will  stand  out  in  a  still  clearer  light, 
when  explained  by  a  consideration  of  the  next  source  of 
false  reasoning — viz, 

2.  That,  the  nature  of  the  effect  is  always  the  same 
as  the  nature  of  its  catise. 


109 


Is  this  a  true  principle,  and  a  safe  rule  of  judging  t 
I  do  not  hesitate  to  answer  no.  It  is  a  mistaken  prin¬ 
ciple,  and  leads  to  error  in  every  step  we  pursue  it. 
Every  scripture  example  I  have  adduced  is  fully  in 
point  to  disprove  it;  and  a  minute’s  attention  may 
convince  us,  that  it  is  no  less  opposed  to  reason,  to  the 
wisdom  of  experience,  and  the  knowledge  of  common 
sense.  In  the  things  of  the  natural  world,  the  analo¬ 
gy  of  which  with  the  moral  world  is  certain,  invaria¬ 
ble  and  uniform  ;  we  recognize  no  such  principle  or 
general  rule  as  a  transferrence  of  nature  from  cause  to 
effect ;  but  sensible  facts  of  constant  occurrence,  give 
full  demonstration  to  the  contrary.  For  instance,  the 
sight  of  a  misshapen,  ill  proportioned  picture,  or  image, 
is  no  evidence  of  bodily  deformity  in  the  painter  or 
statuary.  The  same  sun,  by  the  same  influence,  ex¬ 
hales  the  effluvia  of  the  dung  hill,  and  the  fragrance 
of  the  rose.  It  softens  the  wax  and  hardens  the  clay. 
It  gives  light  to  some  animals,  and  blinds  the  eyes  of 
others  ; — yet  who  argues  from  this,  that  there  is  dark¬ 
ness  in  the  sun — or  any  of  those  properties  which  be¬ 
long  to  the  effects  produced  by  the  influence  of  its 
rays  ?  Fire  applied  to  the  human  body  produces  pain — 
but  is  pain  therefore,  a  property  of  Are  ?— differently 
modified  it  gives  us  pleasure — but  neither  the  one  nor 
the  other  are  the  attributes  of  fire. — Again, 

The  Most  High  God  is  the  Creator  of  all  things  that 
exist — even  of  the  ferocious  beast  of  the  forest,  and 
the  most  venemous  reptile,  that  crawls  upon  the  earth 
— “  his  hand  hath  formed  the  crooked  serpent”— but 
are  we  hence  warranted  to  argue  the  nature  of  the 
cause  from  the  nature  of  these  effects,  and  ascribe  the 
properties  of  a  ravenous  beast,  or  of  a  poisonous  rep¬ 
tile,  to  the  glorious  Creator? — The  question  shocks  us. 
But  just  as  absurd  is  the  application  of  this  principle, 
as  a  rule  of  judging  from  effect  to  cause  in  the  things 
of  the  moral  world — for  moral  beings  are  as  much  de¬ 
pendent  on  God  as  irrational  and  inanimate  creatures  ; 
and  the  divine  agency  is  equally  concerned  in  the  pro¬ 
duction  of  their  evil  exercises,  as  in  the  production  and 
growth  of  an  animal  or  a  tree  ;  and  the  nature  of  the 
effect,  no  more  discovers  the  nature  of  the  cause,  in 

10 


110 


the  one  instance  than  in  the  other.  It  is  as  consist" 
ent  for  God  to  create  sin,  as  to  form  the  crooked  ser¬ 
pent — nor  does  it  any  more  argue  unholiness  in  his 
nature.  It  is  not  a  necessary  fruit  of  divine  agency 
upon  moral  beings  to  create  holy  exercises.  It  is  but 
in  a  special  instance,  and  that  too  by  an  operation 
contrary  to  the  established  law  of  apostatized  human 
nature,  that  God  does  effect  a  moral  conformity  to  him¬ 
self,  and  communicate  a  participation  of  the  divine  na¬ 
ture  to  mankind,  in  their  restoration  to  holiness.  But 
it  does  not  thence  follow  that  he  is  bound  by  his  holi¬ 
ness  to  operate  thus  upon  all.  He  may  proceed  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  established  order  of  things,  in  the  con¬ 
stitution  of  fallen  nature.  The  apostle  says,  “  He 
hath  mercy  on  whom  he  will  have  mercy,  and  whom 
he  will  he  hardeneth .” 

Furthermore.  The  existence  of  sin  as  an  effect  of 
divine  agency,  is  not  only  consistent  with  the  moral 
purity  of  the  divine  character,  and  gives  us  no  warrant 
to  argue  the  unholiness  of  the  cause  from  the  nature 
of  the  effect — but  it  is  utterly  and  forever  impossible, 
in  the  very  nature  of  things,  that  the  originating  cause 
of  evil,  should  be  an  evil  or  unholy  cause.  This  posi¬ 
tion  is  demonstrable,  and  must  be  embraced,  unless  we 
adopt  as  an  alternative,  the  doctrine  of  Zoroaster, — 
that  of  two  self-existing  opposite,  independent  first 
causes — a  good  and  an  evil  deity — a  doctrine  equally 
opposed  to  revelation,  reason,  and  common  sense. 
But  only  admitting  these  self-evident  propositions,  viz. 
that  sin  is  an  effect,  and  every  effect  must  have  a  pre¬ 
existing  cause,  and  the  doctrine  advanced  is  establish¬ 
ed.  For,  if  the  cause  of  evil  be  an  evil  cause  ;  then 
evil  has  existed  eternally.  This  however  we  must  re¬ 
ject,  if  we  admit  the  authority  of  the  Bible — “  1  make 
peace  and  I  create  evil — I  the  Lord  do  all  these 
things.”  Isaiah  xlv.  7.  Now  if  sin  be  an  effect,  then 
it  must  have  had  a  beginning — there  was  a  period,  till 
when,  from  all  antecedent  eternity,  sin  had  no  actual 
existence  in  the  universe.  And  if  we  exclude  the  di¬ 
vine  agency  in  its  introduction,  how  was  moral  evil  in¬ 
troduced  ?  In  what  possible  way  could  sin  have  gained 
existence  ?  It  would  be  absurd  here  to  talk  of  a  crea» 


Ill 


ted  evil  cause  of  evil — unless  it  be  consistent  to  call 
the  same  thing  both  cause  and  effect — for  while  we 
look  no  further,  than  to  an  evil  cause,  we  do  not  come 
to  the  cause  of  evil.  If  the  cause  must  precede  the  ef¬ 
fect  which  is  self-evident,  we  must  look  back  beyond 
the  existence  of  evil,  to  find  its  originating  cause. — 
And  if  an  holy  cause  effected  the  first  sin,  (and  certain¬ 
ly  a  sinful  cause  could  not  exist,  previous  to  the  exist¬ 
ence  of  any  sin)  then  a  holy  cause  may  effect  every 
other  sin  ;  and  so  the  doctrine  of  the  universal  agen¬ 
cy  of  God  cast  no  imputation  of  unholiness  upon  his 
character. 

3.  The  third  source  of  false  reasoning  and  errone¬ 
ous  conclusions  upon  this  subject,  is  a  ?iarroiv  and 
partial  view  of  God’s  works . 

It  is  impossible  for  us  to  judge  aright  of  the  con¬ 
duct  of  Him,  who  is  wonderful  in  counsel,  and  excel¬ 
lent  in  working,  unless  we  extend  our  views  to  the 
great  and  stupendous  plan  of  his  Providence,  which 
every  act  of  his  government  is  in  some  way  or  other 
accomplishing,  and  viewing  every  part  as  connected 
with  and  subserving  the  great  whole— r-the  ultimate  end 
of  all.  It  is  true,  we  are  utterly  inadequate  to  a  com¬ 
prehensive  view,  but  we  are  able,  according  to  our  ca¬ 
pacities,  to  judge  upon  the  universal  scale.  And  God 
has,  for  that  purpose,  given  us  many  smaller  repre¬ 
sentations  proportioned  to  our  limited  powers, — re¬ 
semblances  in  miniature  of  the  infinite  original,  to  as¬ 
sist  us  in  extending  our  views.  And  where  reason 
fails,  and  nature  faints — faith  may  flourish,  and  devo¬ 
tion  say,  “  O  the  depth  of  the  riches  both  of  the  wis¬ 
dom  and  the  knowledge  of  God — how  unsearchable 
are  his  judgments  and  his  ways  past  finding  out.” 
Rom.  xi.  33. 

The  mysteries  of  divine  Providence  in  the  prosecu¬ 
tion  of  the  great  eternal  plan  of  God,  in  which  every 
creature  of  every  character,  angels  and  saints,  wicked 
men  and  devils  have  all  some  part  to  act,  and  as  in¬ 
struments  in  the  hands  of  God  are  accomplishing  his 
purposes  — of  these,  we  have,  it  is  true,  but  a  very 
imperfect  view.  It  is  as  it  were,  a  wheel  within  a 
wheel— infinite  regularity,  order  and  design,  in  the  lit- 


112 


most  apparent  confusion.  We  see  but  a  small  part  of 
the  great  whole.  But  we  see  sufficient  to  believe  the 
rest.  We  see  wisdom,  order  and  design  in  the  works 
of  creation,  and  the  connection  of  things  in  the  natu¬ 
ral  world  ;  and  what  reason  have  we  to  conclude  that 
God’s  agency  is  less  concerned,  or  these  beauties  lest 
displayed  in  the  moral  world  ?  Shall  we  suppose  that 
he  acts  in  every  particular  with  the  most  perfect  de¬ 
sign  in  the  one,  and  without  ;any  at  all  in  the  other. 
We  may  doubtless  have  observed  some  particular 
providence,  or  chain  of  providences,  appearing  in  a 
short  issue  of  things,  most  wisely  and  graciously  de¬ 
signed,  which  at  first  appeared  mysteriously  confused 
and  inexplicably  dark.  And  why  may  not  this  lead  us 
to  believe  the  same  of  those  parts  of  the  moral  system 
which  are  not  unfolded  ?  Why  have  we  not  equally 
good  ground  to  believe  that  the  whole  is  the  operation 
of  one  uniform  plan,  and  that  the  same  divine  wisdom 
is  exercised  throughout  the  whole  and  every  part? 

The  design  both  of  God’s  word  and  providence  is 
to  display  his  character,  and  hold  up  a  glass,  in  which 
we  may  see  little  images,  or  reflections  of  himself. — 
And  these  may  be  seen  in  every  occurrence  of  divine 
providence,  did  we  but  pay  that  attention  which  we 
ought.  God  gives  us  no  misrepresentations  of  his 
character.  “lie  is  not  tempted  with  evil,  neither 
tempteth  he  any  man.” 

Let  any  ignorant  man  view  the  disjointed  materials 
of  a  large  building,  while  under  the  framing  hand  ol 
the  carpenter — and  it  will  all  appear  to  him  like  labour 
to  no  purpose.  He  sees  not,  perhaps,  the  design  of 
one  piece  of  timber.  He  discerns  no  form,  or  beauty 
in  it — all  is  one  confused,  jumbled  mass.  But  the  ar¬ 
tificer  knows  his  plan ; — every  part  is  wisely  framed 
and  fitted  ;  and  when  they  are  joined,  and  the  build¬ 
ing  erected  and  completed,  design  will  appear  through 
the  whole,  and  the  wisdom  and  beauty  of  architecture 
be  displayed.  And  is  not  God  declared  to  be  the  uni¬ 
versal  architect?  “  He  that  built  all  things  is  God.” 
Heb.  iii.  4. 

And  thus  too  it  is  with  mankind  in  judging  of  the 
wisdom  and  beauty  of  God’s  moral  government. — 
They  see  not  the  connexion  and  design  of  its  several 


113 


parts,  and  thence  censure  its  wisdom.  They  look  at 
the  shades  in  the  picture  and  call  them  blemishes  ; — 
they  think  that  God  did  not  make  them  because  they 
are  black.  But  take  away  the  shades,  and  both  the 
beauty,  and  the  picture  itself  is  destroyed.  Men  are 
ready  to  think  that  moral  evil  was  introduced  into  the 
system  by  some  cause  independent  of  God,  and  con¬ 
trary  to  his  will,  and  that  the  existence  of  sin  is  a  blot 
in  his  government.  They  cannot  think  that  he  willed 
it,  and  that  he  effects  it  too,  because  that,  as  they  think 
would  be  acting  out  of  character  as  a  holy  being  and 
a  hater  of  wickedness.  But  he  submitted  to  the  exist¬ 
ence  of  sin,  because  he  could  not  prevent  it,  and  save 
harmless  the  moral  agency  of  his  creatures  ;  and  now 
his  wisdom  is  exercised,  in  turning  this  necessary  evil 
to  the  best  account  in  his  power.  But  is  this  a  correct 
view  of  the  divine  government?  Does  this  exhibit  the 
true  character  of  that  God  who  “hath  made  all  things 
for  himself,  and  the  wicked  for  the  day  of  evil” — of 
whom,  and  through  whom,  and  to  whom  are  all  things? 

There  is  a  wide  difference  between  willing  a  thing 
for  its  own  sake,  and  willing  it  only  as  a  means  to 
something  else,  still  further  in  view  as  the  ultimate 
object  of  choice.  I  may  cheerfully  will  what  I  am 
greatly  averse  from  in  itself  considered,  when  some 
great  good  will  be  acquired  that  will  vastly  counter¬ 
balance  the  evil  sustained  :■ — So  we  may  rationally 
conceive  that  the  introduction  and  existence  of  moral 
evil  in  God’s  system,  and  his  willing,  decreeing  and 
effecting  it,  does  not,  in  the  least,  militate  with  the  ho¬ 
liness  of  his  character,. but  is  the  very  exercise  of  his 
holiness.  It  is  for  the  most  wise  and  holy  end — the 
purpose  of  effecting  the  greatest  possible  good.  And 
if  God  be  infinitely  wise,  it  is  as  certain,  that  the  plan 
which  he  hath  adopted,  is  of  all  possible  plans  the  wi¬ 
sest,  and  best  calculated  to  effect  this  end. 

A  complete  illustration  of  the  truth  and  consistency 
of  the  doctrine  may  be  found  in  the  history  of  Joseph. 
This  is  at  once  the  most  entertaining  and  instructive. 
What  consummate  wisdom  is  discovered  in  bringing 
good  out  of  evil,  and  light  out  of  darkness  !  in  direct¬ 
ing  the  wicked  actions  of  men  to  accomplish  his  pur- 

10* 


114 


poses,  and  advance  his  glory  !  The  whole  and  every 
part  of  this  affair  was  predetermined  by  God,  and  the 
operation  of  his  eternal  purpose. — For  the  effecting  of 
this,  it  was  necessary  that  Joseph’s  brethren  should 
hate  and  persecute  him,  and  send  him  into  Egypt  : — 
that  he  should  be  sold  to  Potiphar — tempted  by  his 
wife  ;  and  by  her  means  cast  into  prison.  These  cir¬ 
cumstances,  together  with  those  relating  to  the  Butler 
and  Baker — his  introduction  to  Pharaoh — the  inter¬ 
pretation  of  his  dreams,  and  his  consequent  advance¬ 
ment  to  the  government  of  Egypt,  are  all  but  so  many 
links  in  the  chain — so  many  successive  steps  in  the 
conduct  of  divine  providence,  towards  effecting  the 
end  in  view.  They  were  all  planned  and  directed  by 
infinite  wisdom,  and  issued  exactly  according  to  God’s 
eternal  design. 

Here,  as  in  a  glass,  we  may  see  the  wisdom  of  God’s 
moral  government  ; — the  order  and  connexion  of  its 
several  parts,  and  how,  in  various  ways,  they  all  con¬ 
spire  to  one  great  end.  Wicked  men  are  but  instru¬ 
ments  in  God’s  hands.  He  directs  their  actions  ac¬ 
cording  to  his  purposes.  Their  “  wrath  shall  praise 
him,  and  the  remainder  he  will  restrain.”  They  are 
called  in  Scripture,  “  God’s  sword.”  They  cannot 
defeat  his  designs — so  far  from  it,  they  can  do  nothing 
but  what  is  exactly  accomplishing  the  divine  purpose. 
In  all  their  acts  of  opposition  to  God,  they  are  but  ful¬ 
filling  his  counsels,  and  executing  his  will. 

This  was  strikingly  shown  in  the  conduct  of  Jo¬ 
seph’s  brethren.  They  acted,  as  to  their  views  and 
intentions  in  direct  opposition  to  the  government  of 
God.  But  wherein  they  dealt  proudly,  he  was  infi¬ 
nitely  above  them.  They  little  thought  how  the  mat¬ 
ter  would  terminate  :  But  it  was  all  under  the  direc¬ 
tion  of  an  invisible  hand,  and  carried  into  effect  by 
the  powerful  agency  of  God.  And  such  were  the  re¬ 
flections  which  Joseph  made  to  his  brethren.  “As 
for  you,  ye  thought  evil  against  me,  but  God  meant  it 
unto  good,  to  bring  to  pass,  as  it  is  this  day,  to  save 
much  people  alive.”  No  thanks  were  due  to  them. 
All  the  glory  he  ascribes  to  God.  “  God  did  send  me 
before  you” — said  he,  “  to  preserve  life — so  that  it 


115 


was  not  you  that  sent  me  hither,  but  God.”  And  this 
he  repeats  and  repeats  to  them,  to  impress  it  the  more 
deeply  on  their  minds  ; — that  they  might  feel  their 
own  nothingness,  and  duly  acknowledge  the  agency 
of  God’s  hand. 

And  why  may  we  not  safely  conclude  from  this  ex¬ 
hibition  of  the  divine  character,  had  we  no  other,  that 
his  agency  is  equally  concerned  in  every  thing  through¬ 
out  the  system,  in  all  the  actions  of  his  creatures,  that 
ever  have  taken,  or  will  take  place  ?  If  he  be  an  un- 
changable  being,  must  it  not  follow  ?  If  he  does  accor¬ 
ding  to  his  will,  in  one  instance,  why  not  in  all  ?  Is 
this  too  hard  for  omnipotence,  or  too  repugnant  to  infi¬ 
nite  wisdom  and  goodness  ?  If  the  wickedness  of  Jo¬ 
seph’s  brethren  in  sending  him  into  Egypt  was  design¬ 
ed  by  God,  and  his  agency  concerned  in  effecting  it, 
as  Joseph  declares  to  them — 6e  so  now  it  was  not  you 
that  sent  me  me  hither  but  God” — why  is  not  the  same 
true  respecting  the  conduct  of  all  men  in  every  age  ? 
God’s  power  is  still  the  same.  He  upholds  all  crea¬ 
tures,  and  pervades  all  space.  He  acts  by  an  uniform 
rule.  With  him  is  no  variableness,  neither  shadow 
of  turning.”  He  is  the  same  yesterday,  to-day,  and 
forever. 

Joseph’s  brethren  meant  it  for  evil.  Sinners  inva¬ 
riably  do.  They  act  freely  and  with  design.  Their 
actions  are  their  own,  though  God  worketh  all  things. 
They  meant  it  for  evil — but  God  meant  it  unto  good . 
He  willed  it,- and  his  will  is  efficacious,  for  he  doth 
according  to  his  will  in  the  army  of  heaven,  and  among 
the  inhabitants  of  the  earth.”  If  Joseph’s  brethren, 
therefore,  were  wicked  in  acting  with  an  evil  design, 
God  was  holy  in  his  conduct,  for  he  acted  with  a  most 
benevolent  design — “  he  meant  it  unto  good.”  We  see 
by  the  accomplishment  that  the  divine  end  was  good. 
God  had  a  holy  and  wise  end — and  he  had  an  undobt- 
ed  right  to  his  choice  of  the  means,  and  it  was  holiness 
in  him  to  use  the  means  which  he  did. 

From  this  small  specimen  of  the  divine  conduct,  we 
have  the  highest  reason  to  conclude,  that  God’s  agency 
is  universal — that  all  events  are  planned  by  his  infi¬ 
nite  wisdom — that  all  creatures  are  in  the  most  abso- 


116 


lute  sense  dependent  on  God,  for  all  their  exercises 
and  actions  ;  and  that  he  has  one  great  and  glorious 
end  in  view,  to  which  he  makes  the  character  and  ac¬ 
tions  of  every  creature,  in  some  way  conduce. 

How  is  the  greatness,  the  sovereignty,  and  glorious 
supremacy  of  God  exaltered  in  this  point  of  view  ! 
How  absolutely  independent  !  What  wisdom  shines, 
in  all  the  conduct  of  his  moral  government  !  How  infi¬ 
nitely  exalted  above  all  creatures  !  He  makes  his  ene¬ 
mies  fulfil  his  purposes,  and  execute  the  counsels  of 
his  will,  even  in  their  acts  of  rebellion  against  him  ; 
and  all  to  conduce,  in  the  final  issue  to  the  greatest 
possible  good  of  his  system.  What  a  happiness  it  is 
to  be  under  the  government  of  such  a  great  and  good 
being  !  We  but  quarrel  with  our  own  happiness,  in 
not  choosing  to  be  'wholly  dependent  on  him.  We 
act  the  part  of  proud,  short-sighted  creatures,  in 
arrogating  to  ourselves  that  independence  which  be¬ 
longs  only  to  God  ;  or  in  censuring  the  wisdom  and 
rectitude  of  his  government,  because  we  cannot  com¬ 
prehend  it.  His  judgments  are  a  great-deep,  past 
finding  out.  W e  see  but  in  part,  but  we  see  infinite 
wisdom  and  goodness  in  that.  Could  we  but  look 
through  the  great  plan,  and  examine  the  connection 
and  subserviency  of  its  several  parts  ; — or  did  we  but 
suitably  attend  to  those  epitomes,  which  God  has  given 
us,  and  adapted  to  our  limited  capacities  ; — a  sense  of 
our  folly  and  arrogance  in  opposing  his  government, 
or  murmuring  under  any  of  his  dealings,  would,  at 
once  overwhelm  us  with  shame  and  remorse. 

Yours,  &c. 

Aristarchus. 


i 


LETTER  IX, 


My  Dear  Friend, 

Let  us  subject  our  reason  to  the  wisdom  of  Cfod, 
and  we  shall  more  clearly  see  the  beauty,  propriety 
and  justice  of  his  government.  This  I  humbly  con¬ 
ceive,  would  have  prevented  your  next  objection. 
But  I  will  quote  and  examine  it — for  whatever  is  not 
defensible  against  every  objection,  is  not  truth  ;  and 
truth  can  lose  nothing  by  fair  examination.  The 
more  closely  it  is  investigated,  the  brighter  it  will 
shine,  and  the  more  firmly  establish  its  belief  in  the 
mind. 

“it  is  a  doctrine  taught  in  the  Scriptures,  proved 
by  experience,  and  embraced  by  Christians  of  almost 
all  denominations,  that,  God  strives  with  sinners  by 
the  influences  of  his  Spirit,  in  opposition  to  their  evil 
exercises  and  wicked  practices — the  natural  tendency 
of  which  is  to  reclaim  the  sinner  from  a  spirit  of  re¬ 
bellion  to  a  temper  of  conformity  and  obedience.  But 
how  does  this  consist  with  the  idea  that  God  does  at 
the  same  time  create  in  the  heart  of  the  sinner  those 
same  evil  exercises,  which  by  his  Spirit,  he  is  stri¬ 
ving  against  ?  Does  not  this  wholly  disprove  his  agency 
in  the  production  of  moral  evil  ?  which  represents  the 
divine  conduct  inconsistent  with  itself ;  as  building  and 
destroying  at  the  same  time.  It  represents  God  as  hav¬ 
ing  two  wills,  and  those  in  direct  opposition  to  each 
other.  He  hath  made  knnown  to  us  his  will  in  his 
written  law — “  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with 
all  thy  heart.”  He  has  taught  us  to  pray,  “  thy  will 
be  done  on  earth  as  it  is  in  heaven.”  He  commands 
all  men  every  where  to  repent  and  belive  the  gos¬ 
pel” — and  expressly  declares,  “  Who  will  have  all  men 
to  be  saved  and  to  come  unto  the  knowledge  of  the 
truth.”  1.  Timothy  ii.  4.  And  yet  God  is  represent¬ 
ed  as  having  another  will,  by  which  he  creates  all  the 


118 


sinner’s  enmity  and  opposition  of  heart  to  his  law 
and  all  the  sin  that  was  ever  committed.  This  is  the 
greatest  absurdity — the  most  palpable  jargon.” 

I  would  first  ask  you,  my  dear  friend,  not  to  form 
your  judgment  too  hastily,  or  condemn  without  a  fair 
trial.  To  talk  without  standard,  and  argue  without 
distinctions,  is  talking  at  random  and  aguing  to  no 
end.  The  surest  method  of  determining  the  specific 
gravity  of  any  substance,  is  by  the  intervention  of 
scales  and  just  weights  ; — and  to  know  with  certainty 
that  a  conclusion  is  just,  we  must  first  know  that  the 
premises  are.  Perhaps,  when  the  objection  is  fairly 
weighed,  the  absurdity  and  jargon  of  the  doctrine  in 
controversy,  will  be  less  palpable,  than  was  appre¬ 
hended. 

There  are  two  parts  to  your  objection,  as  it  is  stat¬ 
ed,  though  both  are  essentially  the  same.  They  dif¬ 
fer  but  in  mode  of  expression,  implying  a  distinction, 
where  there  is  no  difference.  This  is  as  fruitful  a 
source  of  wrong  reasoning,  as  that  of  making  no  dis¬ 
tinctions  where  there  is  real  difference.  These  are 
commonly  in  close  connection.  They  embrace  as 
kindred  principles,  and  by  action  and  reaction,  mutu¬ 
ally  operate  both  as  cause  and  effect  to  each  other. 

Your  first  complaint  is  that  the  doctrine  of  universal 
divine  agency  involves  an  inconsistency  in  the  divine 
conduct ;  or  contrary  operations  upon  the  same  sub¬ 
ject  at  the  same  time. 

That  the  Spirit  of  God  does  strive  with  impenitent 
sinners  in  opposition  to  their  evil  exercises  and  wicked 
practices,  is  readily  enbraced  as  a  doctrine  both  of 
Scripture  and  experience  ;  but  that  this  implies  any 
self-opposition  or  inconsistency  in  the  divine  conduct, 
upon  the  hypothesis  of  universal  agency,  is  as  readily 
denied,  The  objection  is  evidently  built  upon  the 
ground  of  that  erroneous  principle,  that  the  nature  of 
the  effect  must  necessarily  be  the  same  in  kind  with  the 
nature  of  its  cause.  The  absurdity  of  which  I  have 
already  endeavored  to  expose.  Take  away  this,  and 
your  argument  will  fall  to  the  ground.  This  conse¬ 
quence  will  by  no  means  follow,  that,  because  God 
worketh  all  things  after  the  counsel  of  his  own  will, 


119 


therefore  lie  acts  inconsistently  with  himself  in  produ¬ 
cing  both  sin  and  holiness.  Diversity  in  the  mode  of 
operation  affords  no  argument  of  self  opposition,  or 
contrary  ends  in  the  agent.  A  striking  example  of 
this  has  been  given  in  the  course  and  sequel  of  Joseph’s 
history.  The  whole  plan  in  all  its  parts  was  laid  by 
divine  wisdom  ;  but  the  means  by  which  it  was  brought 
about,  were  various,  and  in  their  natures  opposed. 
Both  righteous  and  wicked  men  were  instrumental  in 
the  business — both  holy  and  sinful  actions  in  the  vari¬ 
ous  concatenation  of  effects,  were  improved  by  the 
same  agent,  and  rendered  subservient  to  the  same  end. 
God  was  the  originating  cause  of  the  wickedness  of 
Israel’s  sons,  and  of  Potiphar’s  wife;  and  at  the  same 
time  of  the  meekness,  patience,  piety,  wisdom  and  for¬ 
titude  of  Joseph.  The  issue  abundantly  justified  the 
declaration  of  Joseph,  that  though  his  brethren  meant 
it  for  evil,  yet  God  meant  it  for  good.  Where  the  end 
is  uniform  and  is  invariably  pursued,  no  self  opposition 
is  implied  in  the  diversity,  or  contrariety  of  the  means 
used  to  effect  it.  A  good  end  effected  by  means  which 
are  evil  in  their  nature,  and  contrary  in  their  proper 
tendency,  discovers  the  wisdom,  not'the  inconsistency 
of  the  agent. 

Now  if  sameness  of  character  consist  with  different 
operations  upon  different  subjects  at  the  same  time — 
which  is  evident  from  the  example  just  adduced — • 
why  may  it  not  equally  consist  with  different  opera¬ 
tions  upon  the  same  subject,  at  the  same  time  ?  If  the 
end  be  uniform  in  both,  where  is  the  counteraction  or 
self  opposition?  If  the  design  of  infinite  wisdom  in 
both,  be  the  eventual  accomplishment  of  the  same 
ultimate  purpose,  how  does  it  appear  that  God  acts  in¬ 
consistently  with  himself — as  “building  and  destroy¬ 
ing  at  the  same  time?”  Directly  the  opposite  senti¬ 
ment  is  the  necessary  consequence. — But  this  truth 
will  appear  in  a  still  clearer  light  when  we  consider 
in  the 

Second  place, — In  what  the  strivings  of  God’s  Spi¬ 
rit  consist ;  or  what  we  are  to  understand  by  them,  as 
actually  done  on  the  part  of  God?  This  rightly  as¬ 
certained,  and  fairly  applied,  will  I  think,  be  another 


120 


♦ 


step  towards  disproving  the  validity  of  the  objection. 
There  is  an  important  distinction  here  to  be  brought  in¬ 
to  view — absolutely  necessary  to  a  right  understanding 
of  the  subject — but  which  you  have  entirely  overlook¬ 
ed.  Otherwise  you  would  not  now  need  to  be  turned 
back  to  first  principles,  to  see  that  this  false  argument 
is  the  whole  support  of  your  objection — that  the  uni¬ 
versal  agency  of  God  is  incompatible  with  the  moral 
agency  or  blame  of  the  creature.  If  you  still  contin¬ 
ue  to  embrace  this  sentiment,  I  can  refer  you  to  no 
higher  authority  than  the  word  of  God.  By  this  au¬ 
thority  I  consider,  the  sentiment,  as  already  fully  dis¬ 
proved,  and  the  contrary  as  fully  established  ; — that, 
the  absolute  dependence  of  the  creature  is  perfectly 
consistent  with  his  moral  agency- — that  his  evil  actions 
are  his  own — that  he  is  guilty  and  punishable  for  them. 
Sufficient  has  been  offered  on  this  subject  for  the  con¬ 
viction  of  the  candid,  and  for  the  sake  of  any  others, 
it  will  be  to  no  purpose  to  go  over  the  same  ground 
again.  By  the  light  of  this  truth,  I  now  propose  to 
examine  the  merits  of  the  present  objection.  And  let 
me  speak  the  question  in  the  ear  of  reason — does  God 
act  inconsistently  with  himself,  and  counteract  his  own 
operations  by  convincing  the  impenitent  sinner  of 
these  truths — that  he  is  holy  and  righteous — his  law 
just  and  good;  and  his  government  wise  and  perfect? 
— that,  he  (the  sinner)  is  bound  by  infinite  obligation 
to  love  him  supremely  and  obey  him  perfectly — that 
he  is  abominably  guilty  for  every  act  of  transgression, 
and  justly  deserving  of  eternal  destruction  ?  I  need 
not  wait  for  a  reply.  The  question  answers  itself  to 
the  weakest  mind.  The  only  inquiry  then,  is  this — 
whether,  if  God  be  holy  in  hardening  the  sinners  heart, 
does  he  counteract  his  holiness  by  showing  the  crea¬ 
ture  that  he  is  a  sinner  for  hardening  his  own  heart? 
— does  he  oppose  with  one  hand,  the  agency  of  the 
other  ? 

This  question  is  as  plain  as  the  other — a  child  may 
answer  it.  But  a  conviction  of  sin  is  all  that  is  ever 
effected  in  the  mind  of  the  impenitent  sinner  by  the 
strivings  and  common  illuminations  of  God’s  Spirit. 
God  arrests  the  attention  of  the  sinner,  and  causes  him 


121 


to  read  with  self  application  the  language  of  his  word 
and  providence,  by  which  he  learns  his  true  character. 
And  is  this  counteracting  his  own  operations,  when  God 
tells  the  sinner  in  his  word,  that  he  hath  mercy  on 
whom  he  will  have  mercy,  and  whom  he  will  he  hard « 
cneth  ? '  God  may  consistently  do  this,  at  the  same  time 
that  he  creates  in  the  heart  of  the  sinner  those  very 
exercises,  which  by  his  Spirit,  he  is  striving,  or  bear¬ 
ing  testimony  against.  He  acts  as  a  holy  being  in 
both,  and  holiness  is  not  opposed  to  itself. 

The  fact  is,  these  operations  of  Deity  are  diverse 
but  not  opposed.  God’s  hardening  the  sinner  effects 
the  exercises  of  his  heart.  He  hardened  Pharaoh’s 
heart.  Whereas  the  strivings  of  his  Spirit,  effect 
merely  the  sinners  understanding'  and  natural  con¬ 
science.  The  understanding  and  the  affections  are  as 
distinct  as  the  head  and  the  heart,  or  as  the  soul  and 
the  body,  and  in  the  case  of  the  impenitent  sinner, 
they  are  altogether  opposed.  The  impenitent  heart 
never  follows  the  dictate  of  the  enlightened  under¬ 
standing;  but  whenever  the  clear  conviction  of  truth 
is  impressed  upon  the  mind,  they  are  at  open  war,  and 
the  opposition  most  sensibly  experienced.  The  com¬ 
mon  illumination  of  the  divine  Spirit  is  an  objective, 
and  not  a  subjective  light.  It  is  an  operation  by  the 
means  of  moral  suasion — but  it  does  not  reach  the 
heart — it  affects  only  the  understanding  and  conscience 
This  is  the  important  distinction  to  which  I  alluded — 
viz,  between  the  understanding  and  the  heart — the 
neglect  of  which  forms  one  principal  ground  of  your 
difficulty.  The  one  may  be  enlightened  while  the 
other  is  hardened  ; — and  thence,  the  operations  of  Dei¬ 
ty  producing  these  effects  are  not  opposed  to  each 
other. — Therefore, 

■  3.  This  may  tend  to  correct  another  mistaken  view 
which  you  have  expressed  in  the  shape  of  an  argu¬ 
ment — viz ,  that  the  strivings  of  God’s  Spirit  have  a 
natural  tendency  to  reclaim  the  sinner  from  a  spirit  of 
rebellion,  to  a  temper  of  conformity  and  obedience  to 
the  rule  of  duty.  Directly  the  reverse  of  this  is  truth, 
— It  is  acknowledged,  that  where  there  is  any  holiness 
previously  in  the  heart,  these  same  operations  of  the 

1 1 


122 


Spirit,  impressing  the  rule  of  duty  upon  the  con¬ 
science,  would,  and  do  have  a  natural  tendency  to  in¬ 
crease  and  strengthen  the  temper  of  conformity  and 
obedience  already  implanted  ; — for  here  is  a  coinci¬ 
dence  of  moral  feeling — a  cooperation  of  the  heart  of 
the  creature  with  the  influences  of  the  Spirit  of  God. 
There  is  however,  nothing  of  this  kind,  but  every  thing 
directly  contrary,  in  the  heart  of.  the  impenitent  sin¬ 
ner.  Striving  implies  opposition,  and  there  is  nothing 
but  opposition  in  his  heart.  It  is  not  a  mistaken,  but 
the  true  character  of  God,  at  which  his  enmity  is  poin¬ 
ted.  It  is  not  because  he  does  not  see  this  character, 
that  he  does  not  love  it — but  because  he  does  see  it 
— and  the  more  clearly  he  sees  it,  the  more  sensibly 
he  hates  it,  and  the  higher  his  enmity  arises.  The  stri¬ 
vings  of  God’s  Spirit,  therefore,  instead  of  reclaiming 
and  softening  the  heart  of  the  sinner,  and  gradually 
effecting  a  temper  of  conformity  and  obedience,  have  a 
real  tendency  to  harden  his  heart,  and  blow  up  the  spir¬ 
it  of  rebellion  to  the  highest  pitch  of  opposition. 
This  we  find  was  the  case  in  the  example  of  Pharaoh, 
and  it  is  so  with  all  impenitent  sinners.  God  strove 
with  him  both  by  his  Spirit,  and  the  most  remarkable 
providences — yet  the  more  God  strove,  with  him,  the 
more  he  opposed,  and  the  more  he  hardened  his  heart. 

It  is  true,  that  an  outward  reformation  of  manners, 
generally,  if  not  always  accompanies  legal  convictions 
of  sin — but  restraining  grace  differs  widely  from,  sanc¬ 
tifying  grace,  and  bodily  exercises  from* those  of  the 
heart :  —  the  latter  only  are  interesting  to  this  question 
— the  tempter  of  the  heart  is  the  object  of  inquiry- — a 
spirit  of  conformity  or  not,  to  the  rule  of  duty.  And 
it  is  plain  to  common  sense,  that  the  sight  of  an  object 
hated ,  has  a  very  different  tendency  from  that  of  exci¬ 
ting  love.  This  is  the  thing  effected  by  the  strivings 
of  God’s  Spirit  upon  impenitent  sinners.  God  and  his 
law  are  brought  to  their  view ;  and  if  the  carnal  mind 
be  enmity  against  God,  and  cannot  be  subject  to  his 
law ;  it  is  as  certain,  that  all  the  strivings  of  God’s 
Spirit,  antecedent  to  actual  regeneration,  have  a  real 
and  powerful  tendency  to  increase  and  strengthen  this 
enmity.  The  proper  and  only  language  of  the  carnal 


*  123 


heart  towards  God,  is  “depart  from  me,  fori  desire 
not  the  knowledge  of  thy  ways.” 

It  is  therefore  a  very  mistaken  notion  which  many 
have,  that  an  impenitent  sinner  under  conviction  is 
gradually  becoming  better ;  and  that  the  strivings  of 
the  divine  Spirit  have  a  tendency  to  soften  and  reclaim 
hisheart ; — and  are  accompanied  with  this  effect.  The 
truth  is,  he  is  growing  worse,  with  an  accelerated  ra¬ 
pidity,  and  incurs  a  more  aggravated  guilt,  than  the 
perfectly  stupid  and  secure  sinner  ; — as  he  sins  against 
greater  light — does  greater  violence  to  his  conscience, 
and  exercises  higher  enmity  against  God. 

The  example  of  Felix  is  in  point.  The  strivings  of 
God’s  Spirit  accompanied  the  preaching  of  Paul,  and 
impressed  truth  upon  his  conscience,  in  so  powerful  a 
manner,  that  he  trembled  upon  his  judgment  seat. 
Why  then,  did  he  not,  under  these  alarming  and  awful 
impressions  of  truth,  yield  to  its  force,  and  submit 
himself  to  God,  if  this  were  a  necessary  consequence 
of  such  a  conviction,  or  the  natural  tendency  of  the 
strivings  of  God’s  Spirit?  But  such  was  the  strength 
of  his  opposition,  that  he  bribed  his  conscience  with  a 
feigned  promise  of  future  attention;  and  all  his  con¬ 
viction  issued  in  this— “  go  thy  way  for  this  time — 
when  I  have  a  convenient  season,  I  will  call  for  the.” 
Acts  xxiv,  2d. 

What  our  Saviour  said  of  the  Jews  is  full  evidence 
of  this  truth,  that  the  greatest  degree  of  speculative 
light  and  knowledge  is  not  only  consistent  with  the 
highest  degree  of  heart  enmity,  but  naturally  followed 
by  it.  “  They  have  both  seen  and  hated,  both  me  and 
my  Father.”  John  xv,  24.  This  they  confirmed 
by  a  particular  and  very  awful  example.  After  they 
had  at  a  certain  time,  witnessed  Christ’s  casting  out  a 
devil — being  convinced  in  their  consciences,  that 
it  was  a  good  work,  and  wrought  by  the  finger  of  God  ; 
— and  unable  to  express  their  opposition  in  any  other 
way,  vented  their  rage  in  a  torrent  of  blasphemy, — 
paying — “  He  casteth  out  devils  through  Beelzebub 
the  chief  of  the  devils.”  Luke  xi.  15. 

Therefore,  if  the  clearest  light  and  knowledge  in 
the  understanding,  and  the  deepest  conviction  of  truth 


124  * 


in  the  conscience,  consist  with  the  highest  enmity  and 
opposition  of  heart;  and  not  only  so,  but  the  latter  is 
found  to  increase  with  the  former; — the  operation  of 
the  divine  Spirit,  in  effecting  conviction  of  sin,  has  no 
tendency  to  a  temper  of  conformity  and  obedience  to 
the  rule  of  duty — but  the  contrary. — Therefore,  there 
is  no  dashing  of  parts  in  the  divine  conduct.  The 
strivings  of  God’s  Spirit  effecting  this  conviction  is  per¬ 
fectly  consistent  with  his  universal  agency.  in  the 
greatest  diversity  of  operations,  there  is  not  one  discor¬ 
dant  stroke.  Unity  of  design  pervades  and  directs  the 
whole.  “  The  Lord  is  ever  of  one  mind.” 

But  the  objection  is  continued  in  a  varied  form.  Two 
opposite  wills  in  God,  is  asserted  to.be  a  necessary  con¬ 
sequence  of  the  doctrine  contended  for.  This  arises 
solely  from  misconstruction.  It  is  a  consequence  with¬ 
out  any  premises.  If  the  first  part  of  the  objection 
be  removed,  as,  I  think  it  is,  this  is  left  without  any 
foundation.  If  universal  divine  agency  be  not  self  in¬ 
consistent, — but  in  all  his  diverse  operations,  God  acts 
steadily  and  uniformly  to  one  great  and  holy  end,  there 
is  not  the  least  room  for  the  idea  of  his  having  two  op¬ 
posite  wills.  But  scripture  is  adduced  in  support  of 
the  objection.  Let  us  examine  the  justness  of  its  ap¬ 
plication.  You  first  remark,  that,  “  God  hath  made 
known  to  us  his  will  in  his  written  law;  Thou  shall 
love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart  6lc.” 

This  is  applying  the  term  in  its  restricted,  and  not  in 
its  most  usual  and  scriptural  sense — but  blending  to¬ 
gether  the  divine  will  and  the  rule  of  duty  indiscrimin¬ 
ately.  These  however,  are  as  distinguishable  as  any 
two  objects  whatever.  In  the  proper  sense  of  the  word, 
it  is  not  true,  that  the  written  law  of  God  is  a  releva- 
tion  of  his  will.  The  will  of  God  is  not  to  be  taken 
in  that  limited  and  partial  sense,  as  having  respect  only 
to  what  in  its  own  nature  is  pleasing  to  him.  The  will 
of  God,  as  has  been  observed  is  undistinguishable  from 
his  agency,  and  we  can  have  no  other  idea  of  God’s 
power,  but  the  exercise  of  his  will.  And  we  are  ex¬ 
pressly  told  that  “he  worketh  all  things  after  the  coun- 
sil  of  his  own  will .”  If  therefore,  you  should  insist 
on  a  distinction  between  the  divine  will  and  agency. 


A 


125 


yet  you  must  allow  them  both  to  be  alike  cooperative 
and  coextensive;  and  the  latter  is  here  declared  to  be 
universal — “  who  worketh  all  things .”  But  how  does 
this  comport  with  the  idea  that  God’s  written  law  is  the 
revelation  of  his  will  ?  Upon  your  hypothesis,  uni¬ 
versal  holiness  must  take  place  throughout  the  intelli¬ 
gent  system,  or  it  would  not  be  true,  that  God  worketh 
all  things  arter  the  counsel  of  his  own  will.  The  last 
transgression  of  the  divine  law  affords  an  invincible 
argument  in  disproof  of  your  doctrine  : — and  is  not 
the  law  of  God  transgressed  ?  And  shall  we  say  that 
the  transgression  of  his  law,  in  this  sense  contrary  to 
Gns  will,  when  he  declares  to  us  that  he  worketh  all 
things  after  the  counsel  of  his  own  will  ?  If  creatures 
can,  in  this  sense  counteract  the  will  of  God,  they  may 
defeat  all  his  purposes,  and  overthrow  his  govern¬ 
ment. 

But  enough  upon  this  point.  I  proceed  to  the  next 
passage, which  is  a  petition  in  the  Lord’s  prayer — “Thy 
will  be  done  on  earth  as  it  is  in  heaven” — But  does 
this  imply  that  God’s  will  is  not  done  by  creatures  on 
earth?  Compare  it  with  Daniel  iv.  35.  And  he  doth 
according  to  his  will  in  the  army  of  heaven,  and  among 
the  inhabitants  of  the  earth”  The  petition  therefore 
speaks  nothing  more  than  that  God’s  will  might  be 
done  in  the  same  manner  on  earth  as  it  is  in  heaven — 
that  is,  by  the  agency  of  holy  creatures.  Again, 

God  commandeth  all  men  every  where,  to  repent 
and  believe  the  gospel.”  This  is  their  duty  none  can 
dispute.  But  do  all  men  repent  and  believe  the  gos¬ 
pel  ?  Does  the  command  effect  the  thing  commanded  ? 
If  not,  it  is  not  an  expression  of  the  divine  will.  It 
only  points  out  the  duty  of  sinners,  with  the  obliga¬ 
tion  of  infinite  authority,  and  declares  what  kind  of 
moral  actions  are  in  their  own  nature  pleasing  to  God. 

The  next  and  last  passage  which  you  bring  forward 
is  that  in  1.  Timothy  ii.  4.  “Who  will  have  all  men 
to  be  saved,  and  to  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth.” 

The  form  of  this  expression  strongly  favours  the  ob¬ 
jection,  and  if  entirely  disconnected,  it  were  the  whole 
Bible  upon  the  subject,  might  perhaps  be  conclusive. 
But  if  compared  with  other  parts  of  sacred  writ  and 

ir 


examined  in  its  near  connexion  with  what  immediately 
precedes  it,  your  construction  will  be  found  to  set  scrip¬ 
ture  at  war  with  itself,  and  involve  your  own  scheme, 
in  that  absurdity,  inconsistency  and  jargon  of  which 
you  complain;  that  of  two  opposite  wills  in  Deity. 
Compare  this  passage  with  that  in  Romans  ix.  15.  and 
it  will  show  that  the  words,  all  men ,  are  not  here  to 
be  taken  in  the  universal  sense — for  otherwise,  a  di¬ 
rect  contradiction  wrould  ensue.  “  Therefore  hath  he 
mercy  on  whom  he  will  have  mercy,  and  whom  he  will 
he  hardenethd'1  Now,  doth  God  will  to  save  all  men 
and  yet  will  to  hardens,  parti  This  would  be  to  ascribe 
two  opposite  wills  to  him,  in  reality.  But  the  difficul¬ 
ty  is  easily  solved,  and  the  consistency  between  the 
two  passages  shown, — by  which  it  will  appear  that 
both  are  directly  in  point  against  you.  Only  attend  to 
the  connection  of  that  in  Timothy,  and  we  need  not 
mistake  the  divine  counsel.  The  apostle  begins  the 
chapter  thus — “  I  exhort  therefore,  that  first  of  all, 
supplications,  prayers,  intercessions  and  giving  of 
thanks  be  made  for  all  men  :  for  kings  and  all  that  are 
in  authority,  that  we  may  lead  a  quiet  and  peaceable 
life  in  all  godliness  and  honesty,  for  this  is  good 
and  acceptable  in  the  sight  of  God  our  Saviour.” 
The  passage  in  question  immediately  follows,  evident¬ 
ly  designed  to  enforce  the  exhortation  given,  by  adding 
a  still  further  motive  of  encouragement  to  the  duty  of 
praying  for  all  men,  viz,  that  it  was  not  only  in  itself 
pleasing  to  God,  but  it  was  his  actual  will  and  deter¬ 
mination  to  save  sinners  of  all  the  various  descriptions 
of  mankind,  high  and  low,  great  and  small.  If  it  were 
certainly  revealed  to  us,  that  God  would  save  none  of 
a  particular  class  of  men,  we  should  have  no  encour¬ 
agement  to  pray  for  their  salvation — nor  would  it  be 
our  duty,  any  more  than  to  pray  for  the  salvation  of 
the  fallen  angels,  But  if  we  are  assured  that  it  is  the 
divine  purpose  to  save  some  of  all  classes  of  mankind, 
it  becomes  our  duty  and  is  our  ecouraging  motive  to 
pray  for  all  men.  This,  I  conceive  is  the  natural  con¬ 
struction  of  the  text,  and  it  must  be  understood  in  this 
sense,  in  order  to  be  consistent  with  other  parts  of 
scripture,  that  God  will  save  sinners  of  all  descriptions 


12? 


of  men.  No  class  are  shut  out  from  the  infinite  bles¬ 
sing  of  salvation.  The  insertion  of  the  particle,  of, 
next  to  the  word  have,  which  is  very  reasonably  under¬ 
stood,  and  seems  necessarily  implied,  will  give  the 
true  sense  of  the  passage — “  Who  will  have  of  all  men, 
(or  descriptions  of  men)  to  be  saved.”  But  does  God’s 
determination  to  save  some  of  all  mankind,  and  his 
hardening  and  destroying  the  rest,  imply  that  he  hath 
two  opposite  w ills  ?  * 

Your  next  objection  in  reply  to  the  foregoing  re¬ 
marks  very  naturally  arises  and  is  not  unjrequently 
made. 

Are  the  strivings  of  God’s  Spirit  designed  to  harden 
the  sinner  ?  What  then  is  the  blessing  of  a  Revival  ? 
In  this  view  of  things  they  are  to  be  dreaded  and  not 
desired — for  the  carnally  stupid  and  secure  sinner  is  a 
fairer  candidate  for  salvation ,  than  one  whose  attention 
is  awakened ,  and  whose  conscience  convicted. 

We  know  not  the  designs  of  God,  but  by  what  actu¬ 
ally  takes  place.  This  however  we  have  evidence  to 
believe  from  examples  in  his  word,  that  many  have 
been  the  subjects  of  the  strivings  of  his  Spirit,  whom 
he  had  no  design  to  save.  Your  monsequence  from 
the  doctrine  nevertheless,  does  not  follow.  It  is  not 
because  one  sinner  is  less  guilty  than  another,  that  he 
is  a  fairer  canidate  for  heaven,  (the  unpardonable  sin 
only  excepted.)  The  mercy  of  God  is  as  sufficient  for 
the  greatest,  as  for  the  smallest  sinner.  And  because 
sinners  oppose  and  pervert  divine  influences,  which  is 
evil  and  undesirable,  is  no  argument  that  the  strivings 
of  God’s  Spirit  are  not  beneficial  and  desirable.  Ail 
their  tendency  to  harden  the  sinner,  springs  from  the 
pride  and  enmity  of  his  own  evil  and  wicked  heart. 

But  if  the  question  be  what  benefit  will  the  sinner 
derive  from  the  strivings  of  the  Spirit,  if  he  continue 
to  the  last  to  oppose  and  resist  them?  The  answer  is 
plain.  None  at  all.  They  will  serve  to  aggravate 
his  condemnation.  But  does  it  thence  follow,  that 
they  were  in  themselves  undesirable  for  him  to  be  the 
subject  of,  while  he  was  in  the  way  of  mercy,  and  a 
candidate  for  heaven  ;  and  when  nothing  but  his  own 
pride  and  perverseness  prevented  his  reaping  from 


128 


them  the  infinite  blessing  of  salvation,  freely  offered 
him?  It  is  true  that  all  the  designs  of  God  in  his 
conduct  with  the  sinner  will  be  answered.  His  word 
shall  not  return  unto  him  void,  nor  fail  of  accomplish¬ 
ing  his  pleasure — yet  the  ultimate  design  of  the  divine 
conduct,  can  be  learnt  only  by  the  issue.  But  if  truth 
be  important,  and  the  knowledge  of  it  necessary  to  his 
embracing  it — if  it  be  a  circumstance,  or  means,  with¬ 
out  which  he  cannot  be  in  the  road  to  happiness,  or 
attain  to  a  saving  knowledge  of  God,  and  of  Jesus 
Christ — which  is  most  certain, — then  it  will  follow,  as 
a  necessary  consequence,  that  the  strivings  of  God’s 
Spirit,  by  which  a  conviction  of  truth  is  wrought  in 
his  mind,  are  desirable  and  of  the  utmost  importance  ; 
and  a  revival  of  religion  to  be  hailed  as  the  richest 
blessing  which  God  bestows  on  sinful  men. 

The  awakened  and  convicted  sinner  is,  to  human 
view,  a  much  fairer  candidate  for  salvation,  than  the 
stupid  and  secure,  the  openly  immoral  and  profane. 
Why?  Not  because  he  is  less  guilty  ;  for,  as  the  case 
may  be  he  is  more  ; — not  because  he  is  more  disposed 
to  submission — for  he  is  more  strongly  and  obstinate¬ 
ly  opposed  : — not  because  conviction  of  sin  and  re¬ 
morse  of  conscience  have  any  tendency  to  change  his 
heart — for  he  still  grows  the  more  obdurate  : — not  be¬ 
cause  he  is  gradually  growing  better  under  convic¬ 
tions  ;  the  reverse  of  this  has  been  shown  : — and  not 
because  there  is  any  certain,  necessary  or  promised 
connexion  between  conviction  and  conversion — for 
many  have  stilled  the  strongest  convictions,  grieved 
away  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  returned  again  to  carnal 
security  : — but  simply  and  solely  because  this  is  God’s 
method  of  bringing  in  his  elect,  and  no  adult  sinner  is 
converted  in  any  other  way.  God  doth  not  take  the 
sinner  to  heaven  immediately  from  a  state  of  carnal  se¬ 
curity  and  stupidity.  When,  therefore,  we  see  a  sin¬ 
ner  under  a  deep  conviction  of  sin,  and  an  alarming 
apprehension  of  the  wrath  of  God,  crying  out  in  the 
anguish  and  bitterness  of  his  spirit, — what  shall  I  do  to 
be  saved  ?  we  have,  for  the  reason  just  mentioned, 
more  visible  ground  to  hope  that  God  designs  mercy 
for  him,  and  will  convert  and  save  him,  than  for  one 


i 


129 


who  is  openly  immoral  and  profane,  and  living  as 
thoughtless  of  death  and  eternity  as  the  brutes. 

Many  important  ends  are  answered  by  this  mode  of 
God’s  dealing  with  his  rebellious  creatures.  Convic¬ 
tion  of  sin  is  a  proper  and  necessary  preparative  for 
the  sinner  to  become  a  recipient  of  regenerating  grace. 
By  it  he  is  convinced  of  the  pride  and  enmity  of  his 
heart — his  utter  opposition  to  every  thing  morally 
good — his  impotency,  guilt  and  wretchedness,  and 
hence  of  his  perishing  need  of  a  divine  righteousness, 
and  his  absolute  dependence  on  sovereign  mercy. — - 
When  the  sinner  has  tried  every  effort  in  vain — is  driv¬ 
en  from  the  last  plank  of  his  own  righteousness,  and 
finds  himself  sinking  and  perishing  without  hope,  un¬ 
less  tlie  arm  of  sovereign  mercy  be  extended  for  his 
salvation — then  is  the  time  for  God  to  display  his  in¬ 
finite  mercy,  and  make  bare  his  holy  arm  in  plucking 
the  sinner  as  a  brand  from  the  burning,  and  new 
moulding  the  carnal  heart  of  enmity  into  the  temper 
and  the  transports  of  heaven.  Thus  God  will  be  the 
more  highly  exalted  ;  the  sinner  the  more  deeply  hum¬ 
bled,  and  prepared  to  unite  in  the  song  of  Moses  and 
the  Lamb — “  Not  unto  us,  but  unto  thy  name  give  glo¬ 
ry,  for  thy  mercy  and  thy  truth’s  sake.” 

Yours,  with  much  respect, 

Aristarchus, 


LETTER  X. 


Dear  Sir, 

Your  next  objection  to  the  doctrine  of  divine  sove¬ 
reignty,  and  your  reasonings  in  support  of  it,  I  am 
sorry  to  say  are  as  uncandid  as  they  are  misconceived. 


I  will  first  state  the  objection,  in  your  own  words, 
and  then  endeavour  to  analyze  and  examine  it. 

“  The  Calvinistic  creed  represents  mankind  as  ob¬ 
jects  of  the  divine  hatred  only — not  even  through  the 
Redeemer  as  a  race  of  beings,  the  subjects  of  his  com¬ 
passion  and  mercy.  This  is  inadmissible.  I  cannot 
conceive  of  the  Most  High  as  oossessed  of  this  vindic- 
tive  spirit  towards  the  natural  state  of  men,  and  at  the 
same  time  that  he  so  far  loved  them  as  to  send  his  only 
begotten  Son  to  redeem  them.  “God  so  loved  the 
world.”  Is  not  this  spoken  of  the  world  in  its  natu¬ 
ral  state?  If  not,  here  is  a  text  full  to  the  purpose: 
“Herein  is  love,  not  that  we  loved  God,  but  that  he 
loved  us  and  gave  his  Son  to  be  a  propitiation  for  our 
sins,”  This  speaks  plainly,  that  he  compassionated 
our  natural  state,  and  made  provision  for  escaping  its 
consequences.  That,  one  of  its  consequences,  sepa¬ 
rate  from  his  interposition  is  a  continual  opposition  to 
him  is  readily  granted.  This  state  of  ours  is  held  up 
in  scripture,  as  the  very  cause  of  his  sending  his  Son 
into  the  world.  And  I  am  fully  persuaded  that  the  re¬ 
demption  of  Christ  is  universal.  From  many  scrip¬ 
ture  passages  in  proof  of  this,  I  shall  refer  you  to  two 
onlv — “  That  Jesus  by  the  grace  of  God  might  taste 
death  for  every  man — Who  is  the  propitiation  for  our 
sins,  and  not  for  ours  only,  but  for  the  sins  of  the 
whole  world.”  Now  how  do  these  declarations  con¬ 
sist  with  the  idea,  that  Christ  died  only  for  a  part  of 
mankind,  and  that  he  is  a  propitiation  only  for  tne  sins 
of  an  elect  number?  That  all  do  not  receive  the  bene¬ 
fits  of  his  redemption  is  no  argument  against  it,  upon 
the  principles  of  scripture.  “  And  through  thy  knowl¬ 
edge,  says  St.  Paul,  shall  the  weak  brother  perish,  for 
whom  Christ  died  ?”  If  Christ  be  the  propitiation  for 
the  sins  of  the  whole  world,  why  are  not  the  sins  of 
the  whole  remittable?  What  impediment  is  therein 
the  way,  but  only  a  voluntary  abuse  of  the  advantages 
which  God  hath  put  into  our  hands  ? 

In  the  first  place,  Sir,  I  must  observe,  that  you  have 
utterly  mistaken  the  Calvinistic  creed,  and  set  down 
your  own  misconstruction  of  it  as  the  object  of  contro¬ 
versy.  This  method,  however  unfair,  is  yet  but  too 


131 


common  in  sectarian  disputes.  It  is  an  enemy  to  the 
candid  investigation  of  truth,  and  therefore  ought  to 
be  carefully  guarded  against.  Is  it  just  or  candid  for 
you  to  assert  that  the  Calvinistic  creed  represents  God 
as  an  enemy  to  the  works  of  his  hands  ;  and  that  even 
as  a  race  of  beings,  they  are  not  the  subjects  of  his 
compassion  and  mercy  through  the  Redeemer  ?  What 
is  the  Calvinistic  Creed  on  this  subject — for  you  need 
to  be  informed  ?  Simply  this,  that  God  views  sin  with 
perfect  disapprobation  and  abhorrence — that  man, 
since  the  apostacy  is  naturally  a  sinner, — entirely  des¬ 
titute  of  holiness  ;  and  that,  therefore,  God  has  no 
complacency  in  his  moral  character,  but  views  it  with 
the  utmost  abhorrence.  And  what  can  you  oppose  to 
this  ?  Does  it  imply  that  God  is  an  enemy  to  the  works 
of  his  hands  ?  Because  he  abhors  the  moral  characters 
of  men,  doth  he  therefore  hate  their  persons,  and  is  so 
opposed  to  their  happiness,  that  they  as  a  race  of  be¬ 
ings,  are  not  the  objects  of  his  compassion  and  mercy 
through  the  Redeemer?  This  is  a  very  wanton  as¬ 
sumption.  Does  it  argue  the  Most  High  void  of  com¬ 
passion,  and  possessed  of  a  revengeful  spirit  because 
he  infinitely  abhors  all  moral  evil  ?  In  proving  your 
God  a  being  of  compassion  and  mercy,  would  you  be 
understood  to  mean  that  he  is  not  a  being  of  justice 
and  purity,  but  loves  the  moral  character  of  the  sinner, 
and  is  pleased  with  the  nature  of  sin  ?  Certainly  not. 
We  are  commanded  to  be  Godlike  in  forgiving  our  en¬ 
emies,  and  doing  them  good.  “If  thine  enemy  hun¬ 
ger,  feed  him — if  he  thirst,  give  him  drink,  &c.  If  a 
vile  ruffian  should  abuse  your  person,  and  murder  your 
only  son,  you  would  not,  in  the  exercise  of  a  Godlike 
temper,  have  the  smallest  feeling  of  revenge  towards 
him — but  would  forgive  him  Mo r  Christ’s  sake,  wish 
him  well, — pity  him  and  pray  for  his  pardon  and  sal¬ 
vation.  The  Saviour  set  the  example  when  hanging 
upon  the  cross.  But  would  this  imply  that  you  loved 
the  character  of  the  ruffian,  and  approved  of  his  abom¬ 
inable  wickedness  ?  No  : — but  directly  the  contrary. 
The  higher  the  degree  of  your  pitty  and  benevolence 
towards  the  poor  vile  wretch,  the  greater  would  be 
your  abhorrence  of  his  atrocities. 


132 


In  the  same  light  are  we  to  view  the  affections  of 
the  divine  mind.  God’s  hatred  of  moral  evil  is  per¬ 
fectly  consistent  with  his  love  of  moral  being.  They 
are  clearly  distinguishable  and  yet  inseparably  con¬ 
nected.  They  are  jointly  exercised,  and  in  an  equal 
degree.  Man  as  a  sinner  God  views  with  just  abhor¬ 
rence  ; — as  his  creature  and  capable  of  enjoying  hap¬ 
piness,  God  loves  him  ; — as  a  wretched  ruined  crea¬ 
ture,  the  God  of  mercy  pities  him,  gives  his  Son  to 
die  for  his  salvation,  and  through  him  offers  pardon 
and  eternal  life  to  all  and  every  one  who  will  believe. 
It  was  therefore,  quite  unnecessary  for  you  to  prove 
that  God  is  not  a  malevolent  or  revengeful  being;  or 
waste  arguments  to  disprove,  what  no  one  believes^ 
that  God  is  an  enemy  to  the  happiness  of  his  creatures. 
This  must  have  been  because  you  do  not  properly  dis¬ 
tinguish  between  the  holy  anger  of  God,  which  has  no 
other  object  but  sin,  and  is  an  exercise  of  love  to  the 
happiness  of  moral  beings  ; — and  the  passionate  re¬ 
vengeful  anger  of  men,  which  is  pointed  at  the  very 
being  of  its  object,  and  can  be  satisfied  with  nothing 
but  its  misery. 

Neither  do  you  make  any  distinction  between  the 
love  of  benevolence,  and  the  love  of  complacence — or 
you  could  not  have  brought  scriptural  declarations  of 
the  divine  compassion  towards  sinners,  in  proof  of  the 
divine  complacency  ill  the  natural  character  of  men, 
which  you  acknowledge  to  be  opposed  to  God. 

“  This  now,”  you  say  “  speaks  plainly  that  he  com¬ 
passionated  our  natural  state,  and  made  provision  for 
escaping  its  consequences.  That  one  of  its  conse¬ 
quences  separate  from  his  interposition  is  a  continual 
opposition  to  him,  is  readily  granted.  This  state  of 
ours  is  held  up  in  scripture,  as  the  very  cause  of  his 
sending  his  Son  into  the  world.” 

All  the  ambiguity  in  this  sentence,  which  leaves 
room  for  any  difference  between  us,  is  in  the  use  of  the 
word,  interposition.  By  this  you  mean  only  God’s 
giving  his  Son,  and  the  common  influences  of  his  Spir¬ 
it,  in  exclusion  of  the  idea  of  special  and  distinguish¬ 
ing  grace  towards  any — but  that  God  doth  as  much, 
and  equally  the  same  in  every  point  of  view,  by  the 


133 


influences  of  his  Spirit,. for  the  salvation  of  all  mankind, 
as  for  that  of  any  part  of  the  race.  This  undoubted¬ 
ly  is  what  you  mean  by  universal  Redemption.  Here 
you  are  betrayed,  my  friend,  into  a  sad  inacuracy  by 
not  distinguishing  between  redemption  and  atonement. 
If  by  universal  Redemption,  you  mean  an  all  sufficient 
atonement,  or  an  universal  offer  of  mercy — we  are 
agreed  in  the  thing.  But  the  word  is  mischosen  to 
express  this  idea. — Redemption  is  atonement  actually 
applied  :  and  if  by  universal  redemption,  be  meant  an 
universal  application  of  Christ’s  atonement,  (and  the 
term  is  misapplied  to  express  any  other  idea)  it  is 
then,  but  another  word  for  universal  salvation.  For 
if  the  design  of  Christ’s  death  was  equally  to  benefit 
all  mankind  without  distinction  ;  all  mankind  would 
certainly  be  saved,  as  an  infallible  consequence  ;  or 
the  design  of  Christ’s  death  would  be  frustrated. 

But  I  can  readily  see,  that  in  solving  this  difficulty, 
you  may  again  object  to  irresistable  grace  as  repug¬ 
nant  to  free  agency  : — if  so  I  would  only  refer  you  to 
my  arguments  upon  that  subject,  and  then  to  your  own 
concession,  that  one  of  the  consequences  of  our  natu¬ 
ral  state ,  separate  from  God's  interposition ,  is  a  con¬ 
tinual  opposition  to  him.  Does  not  this  sentiment 
necessarily  imply  irresistable  grace,  in  the  sinner’s 
change  of  heart  from  opposition  to  conformity. — 
Whether  this  change  be  effected  by  power  or  by  light 
— with  means,  or  without — by  all  or  by  none  of  these, 
but  by  something  else,  is  perfectly  immaterial  to  the 
present  question, — The  only  point  is,  whether  any 
interposition  short  of  irresistable  could  be  sufficient 
to  destroy  the  sinner’s  opposition?  If  the  divine  inter¬ 
position  be  resistable,  the  sinner  can  resist  it — and  if 
he  can  resist  it,  he  certainly  wants  not  the  will  to  re¬ 
sist — for  to  resist  is  his  natural  disposition,  and  a  con¬ 
tinual  opposition,  unless,  or  until  overcome  by  divine 
interposition,  is  one  of  the  allowed  consequences  of 
our  natural  state.  The  doctrine  of  irresistable  grace 
thus  conceded,  effectually  oversets  your  w'hole  scheme. 
For  if  this  divine  interposition  be  sufficient  to  destroy 
the  opposition  of  one  sinner,  it  is  equally  sufficient  to 
destroy  the  opposition  of  any  other  ;  and  if  extended 

12 


134 


to  all  equally  as  to  any  (which  is  an  essential  doctrine 
in  the  Arminian  scheme)  it  will  be  equally  effectual  in 
destroying  the  opposition  of  all ,  and  inevitably  issue 
in  the  universal  salvation  of  the  human  race.  This 
must  be  the  consequence,  unless  the  same  interposi¬ 
tion  which  is  irresistable  to  one  sinner,  is  not  so  to  an¬ 
other.  If  we  admit  this,  it  will  follow  that  the  mercy 
of  God  in  the  redemption  of  Christ  is  not  sufficient  for 
the  salvation  of  great  or  very  hardened  sinners,  be¬ 
cause  they  are  capable  of  resisting  his  interpositions — 
but  only  of  small  sinners  who  can  make  but  a  feeble 
resistance,  and  are  therefore  liable  to  be  overcome  by 
the  power  of  divine  grace.  If  therefore  you  would  be 
consistent,  you  must  either  embrace  the  doctrine  of 
universal  salvation  or  relinquish  that  of  universal  re¬ 
demption — for  they  are  inseparably  connected,  and 
must  stand  or  fall  together. 

But  how  do  you  avoid  this  consequence  ?  In  a  way 
which  tends  directly  to  establish  it.  To  prove  your 
favourite  doctrine  of  universal  redemption,  two  mem¬ 
orable  passages  of  scripture  are  adduced  ; — “  That  Je¬ 
sus  by  the  grace  of  God  might  taste  death  for  every 
man  : — who  is  a  propitiation  for  the  sins  of  the  whole 
world  — and  then  you  ask  with  the  assurance  of  af¬ 
firmation — why  are  not  the  sins  of  the  whole  world  re - 
mutable  ?  what  impediment  is  there  in  the  way ,  but  on¬ 
ly  a  voluntary  abuse  of  the  advantages  which  God  hath 
put  into  our  hands  ? — Aye,  truly — upon  this  plan  there 
would  not  be  even  that  impediment — or  if  that  abuse 
existed,  it  would  not  be  such  an  impediment  as  to 
prevent  an  universal  remission  :  for  that  interposition 
which  is  adequate  to  the  repentance  and  pardon  of  one 
sinner — if  extended  alike  to  all,  would  as  certainly 
produce  the  repentance  and  pardon  of  all ;  and  re¬ 
move  that  impediment  in  the  way  of  mercy,  by  effect¬ 
ually  correcting  in  all  mankind  that  voluntary  abuse  of 
the  advantages  which  God  hath  put  into  their  hands. 
So  that  upon  your  plan,  the  sins  of  the  whole  world 
are  not  only  remittable ,  but  they  must,  and  actually 
would  be  remitted,  and  universal  salvation  be  the  con¬ 
sequence — for,  God  does  not  pardon  and  punish  the 


135 


same  subject.  Whom  he  pardons,  he  exempts  from 
punishment,  and  receives  into  his  eternal  favour. 

The  argument  from  1  Cor.  viii.  11,  has  no  force  or 
application  in  this  place.  “And  through  thy  knowl¬ 
edge  shall  the  weak  brother  perish,  for  whom  Christ 
died  ?”  That  is  to  say,  will  you  be  so  indifferent  to 
the  happiness  of  your  weak  brother,  for  whose  salva¬ 
tion  Christ  died,  as  to  neglect  and  counteract  the  means 
of  his  salvation  ;  and  by  eating  in  his  presence  meat 
offered  to  an  idol,  (which  by  your  superior  knowledge 
you  might  have  done  innocently  as  having  no  regard  to 
the  idol)  embolden  his  weak  conscience  to  sin,  by  eat¬ 
ing  it  as  offered  to  an  idol  ?  This  would  betray  a  crim¬ 
inal  want  of  benevolence.  It  would  be  an  unchristian 
act,  and  not  calculated  to  save  the  weak  brother  from 
perishing.  Paul,  therefore,  immediately  upon  it,  says, 
“Wherefore  if  meat  make  my  brother  to  offend,  I  will 
eat  no  flesh  whilst  the  world  standeth,  lest  I  make  my 
brother  to  offend.” 

This  passage,  therefore,  is  no  proof  that  any  sinner 
will  perish,  whom  Christ  died  with  a  design  to  save. 

It  by  no  means  clears  your  plan  from  the  fellowship 
of  uiiiversalism — unless  it  prove  th$t  the  purpose  of 
God  may  be  defeated  by  the  act  of  a  creature :  a  prin¬ 
ciple  which  surely  no  man  in  his  reason  can  understand¬ 
ing^'  embrace.  Can  any  be  so  absurd  as  to  suppose 
that  a  soul  will  finally  perish,  whom  Christ  died  with 
an  actual  and  eternal  design  to  save?  Let  him  read 
John  x.  26 — 28.  “But  ye®  believe  not  because  ye  are 
not  of  my  sheep,  as  I  said  unto  you.  My  sheep  hear 
my  voice,  and  I  know  them,  and  they  follow  me  ;  and 
I  give  unto  them  eternal  life ,  and  they  shall  never  per- 
ish ,  neither  shall  any  pluck  them  out  of  my  hand.” 
Now  are  all  men  Christ’s  sheep?  Do  all  believe  ?  Do 
all  follow  Christ  ?  Is  it  possible  for  Christ’s  sheep  to 
perish  ?  Is  eternal  life  already  given,  of  but  a  tempora¬ 
ry  endurance,  and  liable  to  be  lost  tomorrow  ? 

The  text  in  Corinthians ,  therefore,  proves  nothing 
more  than,  that  means  and  ends  are  inseperably  con¬ 
nected — are  equally  objects  of  the  divine  decree — the 
former  is  necessary  to  the  latter  ;  and  therefore,  that 
we  ought  to  be  as  careful,  and  as  engaged  to  promote 


136 


the  happiness  of  our  fellow  men,  and  our  Christian 
brethren,  as  if  their  eternal  salvation  rested  ultimately 
and  solely  upon  our  exertions.  The  unknown  pur¬ 
poses  ot  God,  though  the  foundation  and  first  cause 
of  every  event,  cannot,  and  never  were  designed  to  be 
the  rule  of  our  conduct. 

Let  scripture  speak  for  itself,  and  this  subject  will 
be  better  explained  and  better  understood.  Take  the 
two  following  passages  and  compare  them.  They  will 
explain  the  passages  which  you  have  cited,  show  the 
nature  and  extent  of  Christ’s  redemption,  and  its  con¬ 
sistency  and  connexion  with  the  doctrine  of  election. 
John  iii.  14 — 16,  and  Acts  xiii.  48.  We  will  attend  to 
the  first  seperately,  and  then  compare  them. 

“And  as  Moses  lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the  wilder¬ 
ness,  so  must  the  son  of  Man  be  lifted  up  ;  that  who¬ 
soever  believe th  in  him  should  not  perish  but  have 
eternal  life.  For  God  so  loved  the  world,  that  lie 
gave  his  only  begotten  son,  that  whosoever  believeth 
in  him  should  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life.” 

In  this  passage  the  mediation  of  Christ  is  clearly 
illustrated  by  the  brazen  serpent  of  Moses,  which  was 
a  designed  type  of  his  crucifixion.  “  As  Moses  lifted 
up  the  serpent  in  the  wilderness  so  must  the  Son  of 
Man  be  lifted  up.”  The  former  explains  the  latter. 
What,  then,  was  the  design  and  effect  of  Moses’  raising 
up  the  brazen  serpent?  The  whole  history  of  it  is 
given  in,  Nitmbers  xxi.  and  it  is  worthy  of  our  partic¬ 
ular  attention  in  the  present  .inquiry. 

The  camp  of  Israel  were.now  in  the  wilderness,  and 
for  their  murmurings  against  God  and  agaist  Moses, 
they  were  bitten  by  fiery  serpents.  The  bite  was  venom¬ 
ous  and  mortal,  and  much  people  ofisrael,  we  are  told, 
died.  After  Moses  had  prayed  for  the  people,  the  Lord 
gave  him  this  direction — “Make  thee  a  fiery  serpent, and 
set  it  upon  a  pole,  and  it  shall  come  to  pass  that  every 
one  that  is  bitten,  w7hen  he  looketh  upon  it  shall  live. 
And  Moses  made  a  serpent  of  brass,  and  put  it  upon  a 
pole;  and  it  came  to  pass  that  if  a  serpent  had  bitten 
any  man,  when  he  beheld  the  serpent  ofbrass,  helived. 
“The  design  of  it  therefore,  expressed  in  the  analogy 


137 


of  the  Saviour’s  words,  was  that  whosoever  looketh  at 
the  brazen  serpent  should  not  die,  but  live,  that  all  that 
would,  might  in  tins  way  receive  healing, 

With  this,  the  atonement  of  Christ  exactly  compares. 
Such  wras  the  nature  and  design  of  his  being  lifted  up 
on  the  cross,  as  expressly  declared  and  repeated  by 
himself  in  the  passage  before  us  ;  “  even  so  must  the 
Son  of  man  be  lifted  up,  that  whosoever  beiieveth  in 
him  should  not  perish,  but  have  eternal  life.  God  so 
loved  the  world  &c — that  whosoever  beiieveth  in  him 
should  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life. 

This  explains  the  nature,  design  and  extent  of 
Christ’s  atonement  ;  and  what  we  are  to  understandby 
universal  redemption ;  though  the  term  is  misapplied, 
and  in  strict  propriety,  there  is  no  such  thing.  It  can¬ 
not,  agreeably  to  the  word  of  God,  be  made  to  signify 
any  thing  moye  or  less  than  this,  that,  in  consequence 
of  Christ’s  death,  all  mankind  are  placed  in  a  state 
of  probation — have  the  offer  of  pardon  and  salvation  ; 
and  all  who  will  accept  of  it,  upon  the  terms  of  the 
gospel,  shall  receive  the  infinite  benefit  of  his  death, 
the  salvation  of  their  souls.  This  is  all  that  is  taught 
us  in  those  texts — “  that  Jesus  by  the  grace  of  God 
might  taste  death  for  every  man — Who  is  the  propi¬ 
tiation  four  our  sins,  and  not  for  ou'rs  only,  but  for  the 
sins  of  the  whole  world.” 

And  now  let  me  ask,  is  the  subject  thus  explained  in¬ 
consistent  with  the  doctrine  of  particular  election  ? 
Does  it  necessarily  follow  from  the  universality  of  the 
offer  of  salvation,  that  God  hath  not  ordained  who,  and 
how  many  shall  by  believing,  accept  the  offer  and  reap 
its  benefits  ?  If  all  do  not  accept  the  offer  and  believe 
in  Christ,  what  is  the  cause,  why  any  do  ?  These 
questions  are  explicitly  answered  in  the  other  propo¬ 
sed  passage.  Acts  xiii.  48.  “  And  when  the  gentiles 

had  heard  this  (the  offers  of  the  gospel  by  the  preach¬ 
ing  of  Paul  and  Barnabas,)  they  were  glad  and  glori¬ 
fied  the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  as  many  as  were  ordain¬ 
ed  to  eternal  life,  believed 

What  can  be  placed  against  this  ?  Is  any  thing 
wanting  to  confirm  an  express  declaration  of  God’s 
word  ?  Here  the  offers  of  the  gospel  had  been  freely 

12* 


13S 

made  to  all — for  there  is  an  infinite  fulness  in  Christ— 
an  all  sufficiency  in  his  atonement  and  expiatory  sa¬ 
crifice  for  sin  : — in  this  respect  it  was  universal.  But 
the  Jews,  to  whom  the  offers  of  the  gospel  were  first 
made,  rejected  them  ;  and  the  apostles  by  divine  direc¬ 
tion  turned  to  the  gentiles — yet  they  did  not  all  be¬ 
lieve.  But  what  made  the  distinction  ?  God  ans¬ 
wers  the  question — “  As  many  as  were  ordained  to 
eternal  life,  believed.”  Can  any  one  read  this,  and  yet 
believe  or  say,  that  there  is  such  an  universality  in  the 
redemption  of  Christ,  as  is  inconsistent  with  particu¬ 
lar  election  ? 

Parallel  with  the  above  passage,  is  the  style  of  Pe¬ 
ter’s  address  in  his  first  epistle  general — He  directs  it 
to  the  saints  and  distinguishes  them  by  this  descrip¬ 
tion, — “  j Elect  according  to  the  foreknowledge  of  God 
the  Father,  through  sanctification  of  the  Spirit,  unto 
obedience,  and  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ.” 
And  also  those  words  of  Paul,  “  Who  is  the  Saviour 
of  all  men,  sjiecially  of  them  that  believe.”  Timothy 
iv.  10.  “  Who  gave  himself  for  us  that  he  might  re¬ 

deem  us  from  all  iniquity,  and  purify  unto  himself  a 
peculiar  people,  zealous  of  good  works.”  Titus  ii.  14. 
And  also  our  Saviour’s  own  declaration — “  All  that 
the  Father  hath  given  me  shall  come  to  me — and  him 
that  cometh  to  me,  I  will  in  no  wise  cast  out.” — John 
vi.  37. 

The  instruction  of  the  Bible  on  this  subject  is  clear, 
and  need  not  be  misunderstood. 

Allow  me  then,  my  dear  friend,  to  say,  for  it  is  the 
fruit  of  a  perfect  conviction — that  if  you  will  bring 
your  system  to  the  Bible,  and  not  the  Bible  to  that — if 
you  will  compare  scripture  with  scripture — view  the 
general  scope  of  the  whole,  and  the  particular  connex¬ 
ion  and  uniform  tendency  of  its  several  parts — the  ex¬ 
ercise  would  issue  in  a  conviction  of  your  mistake,  and 
you  would  view  the  doctrine  in  debate  in  a  different 
point  of  light. 

These  three  questions,  with  scriptural  answers  an¬ 
nexed  comprise  the  whole,  and  place  the  subject  in  too 
clear  a  light  to  be  misunderstood. 


J 


139 


1.  Question.  How  extensive  is  the  redemption  of 
Christ  ? 

Answer .  u  God  so  loved  the  world,  that  he  gave  his 
only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  in  him, 
should  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life.”  John 
iii.  16. 

2.  Question.  How  or  in  what  way  is  faith  obtain¬ 
ed — or  from  what  cause  is  it,  that  any  believe  ? 

Answer.  u  By  grace  are  ye  saved  through  faith  and 
that  not  of  yourselves,  it  is  the  gift  of  God.”  Eph.  ii. 
8.  Who  fnlfilleth  in  us  the  whole  good  pleasure  of  his 
goodness  and  the  work  of  faith  with  power.”  2.  Thess. 
i.  11. 

3.  Question.  “  Who  and  how  many  will  believe  in 
Christ  ? 

Answer.  “  All  that  the  Father  hath  given  me  shall 
come  to  me — 

As  many  as  were  ordained  to  eternal  life,  believed. — 
Can  we  want  any  thing  further  to  explain  Redemption  ? 
Any  thing  more  to  convince  us,  that  the  design  of 
Christ’s  death  was  that  the  offer  of  mercy  might  be 
made  to  all,  and  the  benefit  of  salvation  applied  only 
to  the  elect — to  those  ordained  to  eternal  life  ? — that 
the  grace  of  God  to  them  is  special  and  distinguish¬ 
ing  ?  Though  the  external  calls  of  the  gospel  are  to 
all,  and  the  internal  strivings  of  the  spirit  are  in  a 
greater  or  less  degree  common  with  impenitent  sin¬ 
ners  ;  yet  the  effectual  calling  of  the  saints  is  peculiar 
to  them,  and  distinct  in  its  kind  from  that  of  which 
any  others  are  the  subjects.  To  them  only  is  that  di¬ 
vine  interposition  extended,  which  is  effectual  to  des¬ 
troy  the  opposition  of  our  natural  state. 

Whether  the  consistency  which  you  have  denied,  be 
not  sufficiently  proved  by  the  highest  authority,  the 
testimony  of  scripture,  5  now  cheerfully  submit  to 
your  candid  judgment. 

I  would  fain  hope  that  you  are  now  disposed  to  take 
back  your  next  remark  in  which  you  are  pleased  to  say — 

“  But  after  all  your  nice  distinctions,  and  subtle  ar¬ 
guments  about  means  and  motives,  and  divine  and  hu¬ 
man  agency,  &c.  I  cannot  believe  that  the  Father  of 


140 


mercies  will  eternally  punish  any  of  his  creatures  for 
having  accomplished  his  purposes  by  their  agency.” 

This  objection  is  an  ancient  one.  It  was  stated  by 
the  apostle  Paul,  tho’  in  different  words  ;  and  by  him 
fully  obviated — to  him,  I  will  therefore  refer  you  for 
an  answer. — 

“  Why  then  doth  he  yet  find  fault,  for  who  hath  re¬ 
sisted  his  will  l — Nay  but  O  man,  who  art  thou  that 
repliest  against  God.  Shall  the  thing  formed  say  to 
him  that  formed  it,  why  hast  thou  made  me  thus  ?  Hath 
not  the  potter  power  over  the  clay,  to  make  of  the  same 
lump  one  vessel  unto  honour  and  another  unto  dis¬ 
honour  ?  What  if  God  willing  to  shew  his  wrath  and 
make  his  power  known,  endureth  with  much  long  suf¬ 
fering  the  vessels  of  wrath  fitted  to  destruction  :  and 
that  he  might  make  known  the  riches  of  his  glory  on 
the  vessels  of  mercy,  which  he  had  afore  prepared  unto 
glory  ?” — Who  has  a  right  to  object,  or  any  reason  to 
complain?  shall  man  presume  to  enter  the  cabinet  of 
his  Maker,  censure  the  propriety  of  his  government, 
and  dare  to  say  “  what  dost  thou?”  Shall  he  who  is 
but  of  yesterday,  and  knows  nothing,  teach  infinite 
wisdom  how  to  rule  ?  Shall  he  that  is  nothing,  lend 
assistance  to  almighty  power  ;  and  shall  he  that  de¬ 
serves  nothing  but  destruction,  feel  himself  injured  and 
aggrieved  by  the  conduct  of  infinite  goodnes  ?  Know 
vain  man  that  sin  lyeth  at  thine  own  door.  Let  us 
then  be  humble  and  be  wise.  Let  us  “be  still  and 
know  that  he  is  God.” 

Your  affectionate  friend, 

Aristarchus. 


LETTER  XI. 


Dear  Sir, 

1  find  you  pursuing  your  remarks  in  tlie  following 
strain  of  reasoning. 

Without  the  divine  grace  to  destroy  the  power  of 
sin,  it  is  true,  that  neither  scripture  nor  reason  know 
of  any  reconciliation  to  God.  If  redemption  be  uni¬ 
versal,  or  if  the  atonement  of  Christ  be  all  sufficient, 
and  the  offers  of  mercy  made  to  all; — Upon  either  hy¬ 
pothesis  a  sufficiency  of  this  grace,  universally  impart¬ 
ed,  must  be  a  necessary  consequence  ;  and  it  would  be 
absurd  to  talk  of  either  universal  redemption,  or  uni¬ 
versal  invitation  without  it.  And  such  is  the  instruc¬ 
tion  of  Scripture.  St.  John,  speaking  of  Christ,  says, 
That  was  the  true  light  which  lighteth  every  man  that 
cometh  into  the  world.”  John ,  i.  9.  Now  what  is 
this  light?  Unless  it  bean  universal  sufficiency  of 
grace  ? 

To  forgive  sin  God  only  requires  us  to  detest  it.  The 
Holy  Spirit,  as  far  as  is  consistent  with  our  free  agency 
is  universally  working  for  its  destruction.  Otherwise, 
why  is  he  ever  grieved,  or  quenched  ?  Those  who 
comply  with  his  suggestions,  neither  grieve,  nor  quench 
him.  And  how  can  we  be  so  irrational  as  to  suppose, 
that  he  singles  out  a  person,  here  and  there  to 
influence,  when  this  influence  is  of  no  further  use  to 
him,  than  we  can  suppose  it  to  be,  by  considering  it 
universal.  I  suppose  that  all  that  we  can  do  with  re¬ 
spect  to  our  salvation,  is  not  to  thwart  and  obstruct 
what  God  is  doing  for  us.  “  It  is  he  that  worketh  in 
us  both  to  will  and  to  do.” — What  impropriety  is  there 
then  in  supposing,  that  this  same  principle,  which  is 
nothing  different  from  conscience,  operates  to  the  de¬ 
struction  of  sin,  from  the  first  moment  we  breathe  ?” 

This  objection  is  a  branch  shooting  out  from  the 
doctrine  of  universal  redemption,  and  with  that  must 
wither  when  the  stock  is  hewn  down.  There  is  no 


142 


universal  redemption  to  be  found  in  the  Bible  ;  and  the 
doctrine  of  an  universal  sufficiency  of  grace  to  destroy 
the  power  of  sin  is  no  consequence  from  the  all  suffi¬ 
ciency  of  Christ’s  atonement,  or  the  unlimited  offer  of 
his  salvation.  Our  Saviour  himself  who  best  knew  the 
design  of  his  own  death  has  explicitly  told  us  to  the  con¬ 
trary.  “1  am  the  good  Shepherd  and  know  my  sheep  and 
am  known  of  mine.  As  the  Father  knoweth  me,  so  also 
know  I  the  Father,  and  I  lay  down  my  life,  for  the 
sheep.  John  x.  14,  15. — and  in  the  28th  verse,  he  says 
“  I  give  unto  them  eternal  life.”  Now  are  all  men 
Christ’s  sheep? — doth  he  alike  give  unto  them  all  eter¬ 
nal  life  ?  Is  there  no  difference  between  Christ’s  sheep 
and  the  goats?  between  the  children  of  God  and  the 
children  of  the  devil  ?  Do  they  all  form  one  undistin- 
guishable  mass  ?  Christ  dintinguishes  them  in  the  clear¬ 
est  manner.  The  sheep  lie  will  place  upon  his  right 
hand,  and  the  goats  upon  his  left.  To  the  one  he  will 
say,  “  Come  ye  blessed  of  my  Father  inherit  the  king¬ 
dom  prepared  for  you,  from  the  foundation  of  the 
world.”  And  to  the  other,  “Go  ye  cursed  into  ever¬ 
lasting  fire,  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels.” — 
Christ  says  that  he  knows  his  sheep,  and  that  he  lays 
down  his  life  for  them.  And  if  so,  he  as  certainly  knows 
who  are  not  his  sheep.  And  did  he  lay  down  his  life 
with  a  view  to  save  them,  whom  he  will  finally  ad¬ 
judge  to  everlasting  fire  ?  This  would  be  a  contradic¬ 
tion  in  terms.  If  Christ  laid  down  his  life  for  his 
sheep,  he  as  certainly  had  no  designs  to  save  any  oth¬ 
ers  by  his  death.  And  this  he  farther  signifies  in  his 
intercessory  prayer  to  the  Father.  “  I  pray  for  them 
— I  pray  not  for  the  world — but  for  them  which  thou 
hast  given  me.”  John  xvii.  9. 

A  sufficiency  of  grace  to  destroy  the  power  of  sin 
must  be  that  which  ensures  the  sinner’s  salvation,  and 
is  effectual  to  that  end.  This  grace  is  given  in  exact 
correspondence  to  the  design  and  extent  of  the  effica¬ 
cy  of  Christ’s  death,  and  no  otherwise.  One  design 
of  Christ’s  death  was  that  all  men  might  be  placed 
in  a  state  of  probation — have  the  offer  of  mercy, 
and  the  strivings  of  his  Spirit.  This  grace  is  ac¬ 
cordingly  given.  The  great  and  special  design  of 
Christ’s  death,  was  for  his  sheep,  that  they  might  have 


143 


eternal  life;  and  accordingly  a  sufficiency  of  grace  is 
given  them,  by  the  regenerating  and  sanctifying  influ¬ 
ences  of  his  Spirit  to  insure  this  end. 

No  other  grace  is  necessary  or  to  be  expected  in  any 
instance,  than,  what  is  sufficient  for  effecting  the  actu¬ 
al  design  of  Christ’s  death.  The  grace  of  God  is  not 
given  in  vain.  He  doth  not  give  regenerating  and 
sanctifying  grace  to  those  whom  he  doth  not  design  to 
save — nor  on  the  other  hand  doth  he  withold  that  suffi¬ 
ciency  of  grace,  from  those  he  designs  to  save,  but 
fulfils  in  them  the  whole  good  pleasure  of  his  goodness, 
and  the  work  of  faith  with  power.  He  will  certainly 
insure  the  accomplishment  of  all  his  purposes. 

It  is  absurd,  you  say,  to  talk  of  redemption  without 
this  sufficiency  of  grace  ;  I  admit  it  is  a  necessary  con¬ 
sequence,  but,  on  your  plan  it  is  absurd  to  talk  of  that 
redemption  even  with  it  ;  unless  you  admit  what  is 
impossible  to  shut  out — I  mean  universal  salvation  ; 
which  is  as  inseperably  connected  with  it,  as  the  shad¬ 
ow  upon  the  dial  with  the  motion  of  the  sun. 

But  what  is  this  sufficiency  of  grace,  for  which  you 
contend  ?  I  cannot  satisfy  myself  that  you  use  the  word 
with  any  determinate  idea.  The  antecedent  to  which 
this  expression  relates,  is  divine  grace  to  destroy  the 
the  power  of  sin — -without  which,  you  justly  observe, 
neither  Scripture  nor  reason  know  of  any  reconcilia¬ 
tion  to  God : — And  with  which,  I  as  justly  reply,  nei¬ 
ther  Scripture  nor  reason  know  of  any  remaining  op¬ 
position  to  God: — for  that  grace  is  not  a  sufficient 
grace  to  destroy  the  power  of  sin,  unless  it  actually 
does  destroy  it,  It  is  otherwise  absurd  to  call  it  suffi¬ 
cient  grace,  if  it  be  inadequate  to  that  purpose.  As 
far,  therefore,  as  the  power  of  sin  is  destroyed,  so 
far  the  sinner’s  opposition  is  destroyed,  and  his  actual 
reconciliation  to  God  effected — for  his  opposition,  or 
unreconciledness  is  what  constitutes  the  power  of  sin. 

If  then,  this  sufficiency  of  grace  to  destroy  the  pow¬ 
er  of  sin  be  as  extensively  given  as  the  offer  of  mercy, 
for  which  you  strenuously  contend,  the  power  of  sin 
will  necessarily  be  destroyed  in  all  and  every  one,  who 
hears  and  has  the  gospel  offer  ;  and  an  actual  reconcil¬ 
iation  to  God  be  effected  as  extensively  as  this  sufficient 
grace  is  given. 


144 


Furthermore — If  this  sufficient  grace  be  as  extensive 
as  redemption,  in  your  view  of  redemption,  which  you 
contend  is  universal,  and  say  that  it  would  be  absurd  to 
talk  of  redemption  without  it — then  the  power  of  sin 
will  as  certainly  be  destroyed  in  all  mnnkind,  and  all 
will  become  reconciled  to  God.  So  that  every  path 
you  can  take  from  the  doctrine  of  universal  redemp¬ 
tion,  leads  directly  to  universal  salvation,  and  can  ter¬ 
minate  in  nothing  else. 

It  will  be  in  vain,  here  to  reply,  that  this  grace  does 
not  universally  destroy  the  power  of  sin,  and  effect  a 
reconciliation  to  God,  because  some  voluntarily  abuse 
the  advantages  which  God  hath  put  into  their  hands. 
This  will  not  solve  but  increase  the  difficulty.  It  is  a 
self  contradiction — for  unless  this  grace  effectually  pre¬ 
vent  the  voluntary  abuse  of  those  advantages,  to  the 
sinner’s  destruction — it  is  not  a  sufficient  grace — for  it 
does  not  destroy  the  power  of  sin — and  a  voluntary 
abuse  of  advantages  is  a  fruit  only  of  the  power  of  sin. 

If  by  this  sufficiency  of  grace  to  destroy  the  power 
of  sin,  you  mean  only  the  full  atonement  of  Christ — 
the  free  and  universal  offers  of  the  gospel — and  the 
natural  powers  of  the  sinner  to  accept,  and  believe,  if 
he  will — then  you  mean  one  thing  and  say  another — 
or  rather  you  mean  nothing  at  all  to  your  purpose,  but 
directly  against  it.  For  all  these  things,  which 'are 
readily  granted  to  be  true,  do  not  in  themselves  imply 
any  sufficient  grace  to  destroy  the  power  of  sin  in  one 
of  the  human  race.  They  will  not  effect  a  reconcilia¬ 
tion  to  God.  Yea,  the  common  strivings  of  God’s 
Spirit,  given  to  all  capable  subjects  under  the  light  of 
the  gospel  (and  you  hold  to  no  other)  do  not  have  any 
real  tendency  to  destroy  the  power  of  sin,  but,  on  the 
contrary,  to  increase  the  natural  enmity  and  opposi¬ 
tion  of  the  sinner’s  heart — as  has  been  shown,  and 
abundantly  proved  from  Scripture  authority. 

A  natural  ability  to  repent  and  believe,  we  undoubt¬ 
edly  possess,  or  these  duties  would  not  be  required  of 
us.  But  this  ability  implies  no  disposition  to  repent 
and  believe,  and  therefore  no  sufficient  grace  to  destroy 
the  power  of  sin — for  the  power  of  sin  consists  in  an 
indisposition  to  the  duties  of  repentance  and  faith. 


145 


And  the  greatest  natural  ability  in  the  impenitent  sin¬ 
ner,  consists  with  the  greatest  moral  inability.  It  may 
be  and  often  is  found  united  with  the  highest  degree  of 
opposition  and  enmity. 

When  God  not  only  invites  the  sinner  in  his  word, 
but  actually  gives  him  a  disposition  to  repent  by  the 
power  and  irresistable  influence  of  his  spirit — the  thing 
is  effected — the  opposition  ceases,  and  he  is  then  re¬ 
conciled  to  God  :  for  a  disposition  to  repent  and  be¬ 
lieve,  is  the  very  exercise  of  repentance  and  faith. 
And  this  only  can  be  sufficient  grace  to  destroy  the 
power  of  sin.  But  that  God  actually  gives  a  disposi¬ 
tion  to  repent  and  believe  whenever  he  makes  offers  of 
mercy,  wants  proof  both  from  Scripture  and  experi¬ 
ence. 

Our  Saviour’s  parable  of  the  marriage  supper,  as 
well  as  the  evidence  of  daily  sensible  facts,  abundantly 
disproves  this  idea.  In  that  parable  Christ  gives  us  a 
complete  illustration  of  the  subject,  and  his  instruction 
is  enforced  by  the  constant  and  universal  conduct  of 
mankind.  It  shews  that  neither  the  light,  nor  the  ex¬ 
ternal  calls  of  the  gospel,  nor  even  the  common  stri¬ 
vings  of  God’s  spirit,  have  any  real  tendency  to  de¬ 
stroy  the  power  of  sin.  “The  king- sent  forth  his  ser¬ 
vants  to  call  them  that  were  bidden  to  the  wedding, 
and  they  would  not  come.  Again  he  sent  forth  other 
servants,  saying,  tell  them  which  are  bidden,  Behold 
I  have  prepared  my  dinner — my  oxen  and  fatlings  are 
killed,  and  all  things  are  ready,  come  unto  the  mar¬ 
riage.  But  they  all  made  light  of  it,  and  went  their 
way,  one  to  his  farm  and  another  to  his  merchandize.” 
The  most  trivial  excuses  were  given  for  declining  the 
invitation  ;  and  none  would  come  until  they  were  com¬ 
pelled  and  made  willing  by  power.  This  is  descrip¬ 
tive  of  the  universal  natural  disposition  of  mankind  : 
and  therefore,  the  supposition  is  most  absurd,  that  a 
sufficiency  of  grace  to  all  mankind  to  destroy  the  pow¬ 
er  of  sin,  is  one  necessary  consequence  of  the  redemp¬ 
tion  of  Christ,  and  that  this  grace  is  given  as  exten¬ 
sively  as  the  offers  of  mercy. 

But  you  prove  it  by  Scripture — “  That  was  the  true 
light  which  lighteth  every  man  that  cometh  into  the 

13 


146 


world.”  John  i.  9.  And  then  ask  with  the  assurance 
of  demonstration — what  is  this  light  ?  My  opinion  de¬ 
cides  nothing — but  I  am  clear  in  this  general  negative 
answer — It  is  nothing  which  you  suppose  it  to  be.  The 
passage  is  perverted  to  answer  a  particular  purpose. 
It  is  wholly  misapplied.  For  let  it  mean  what  it  may, 
this  single  point  is  plain  whatever  else  is  doubtful,  that 
it  means  no  such  thing  as  a  sufficiency  of  grace  to  de^ 
stroy  the  power  of  sin — the  point  which  it  was  brought 
to  prove.  Take  the  passage  in  its  connection,  and  it 
cannot  be  thus  perverted.  To  correct  the  mistake,  it 
is  only  necessary  to  read  on  to  the  next  verse.  “He 
came  unto  his  own,  and  his  own  received  him  not.” 
"What  does  this  mean  ?  I  ask  in  my  turn.  What  could 
be  the  reason  of  their  not  receiving  him  ?  Christ  light- 
ed  the  Jews  as  well  as  others — for  he  lighteth  every 
man  that  cometh  into  the  world.  He  surely  then  gave 
them  a  sufficiency  of  grace.  Why  then  did  they  not 
believe  on  him?  Why  was  not  the  power  of  sin  de¬ 
stroyed  in  them?  If  your  conviction  be  still  imper¬ 
fect,  read  a  little  further — “  But  to  as  many  as  received 
him,  to  them  gave  he  power  to  become  the  sons  of  God, 
even  to  them  that  believe  on  his  name.  Which  were 
born  not  of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of 
the  will  of  man  but  of  God.  Where  now  is  your  suffi¬ 
ciency  of  grace  to  all,  in  that  light  which  lighteth  every 
man  that  cometh  into  the  world  ?  “The  light  shineth 
in  darkness,  but  the  darkness  comprehended  it  not.” 
O,  you  will  readily  reply,  they  resisted  that  light,  and 
voluntarily  abused  the  advantages  which  God  had  put 
into  their  hands.  They  truly  did — and  this  fully  and 
forever  disproves  your  theory — and  universal  suffi¬ 
ciency  of  grace  to  destroy  the  power  of  sin.  They 
indeed  resisted  that  light,  and  abused  their  advantages 
in  an  aggravated  manner.  Christ  tells  them,  “  Ye 
have  both  seen  and  hated  both  me  and  my  Father  :” 
and  it  was  by  the  light  which  Christ  gives  to  every 
man  that  cometh  into  the  world,  that  they  thus  saw 
him  and  his  Father.  But  did  this  effect  their  recon¬ 
ciliation  to  God  ?  No.  What  they  saw  by  this  light, 
they  hated,  and  the  more  clearly  they  saw,  the  higher 
their  hatred  arose.  This  universal  light,  therefore, 


147 


which  Christ  gives,  whatever  it  may  be,  is  not  a  suffi¬ 
cient  grace  to  destroy  the  power  of  sin  :  for  where 
that  is  destroyed,  Christ  is  no  longer  rejected — light 
is  no  longer  resisted — advantages  are  no  longer  abused. 

It  would  be  but  an  evasion  here  to  say,  that  the 
Jews  could  have  believed  in  Christ  had  they  been  dis¬ 
posed,  as  they  had  a  natural  power  so  to  do.  Though 
this  be  granted,  yet  this  natural  power,  and  a  sufficien¬ 
cy  of  grace,  are  far  from  being  the  same.  The  Jews 
would  not  believe,  notwithstanding  all  the  light  which 
Christ  gave  them  ;  and  therefore,  that  light  was  not  a 
sufficiency  of  grace  to  destroy  the  power  of  sin  : — for 
the  power  of  sin,  and  an  unwillingness  to  believe  are 
the  same. 

Now  let  me  entreat  you  to  read  again  the  last  verse 
recited  which  will  explicitly  tell  you,  what  that  suffi¬ 
ciency  of  grace,  to  destroy  the  powers  of  sin  is — and 
to  whom  alone  that  grace  is  given.  “But  to  as  many 
as  received  him  to  them  gave  he  power  to  become  the 
sons  of  God,  even  to  them  which  believe  on  his  name. 
Which  were  born  &c.” — Not  to  the  Jews  who  would 
not  receive  him — nor  to  the  world  universally,  but  to 
his  elect, — to  as  many  as  were  born  of  God,  and  or¬ 
dained  to  eternal  life. 

How  can  any  resist  the  conviction  of  this,  and  per¬ 
sist  in  so  manifest  an  error,  as  to  believe  that,  that  light 
which  Christ  gives  to  every  man  that  cometh  into  the 
world,  is  a  sufficient  grace  to  destroy  the  power  of  sin  l 
How  is  it  possible  to  make  such  an  unreasonable  and 
preposterous  application  of  this  passage,  so  carefully 
guarded  as  it  is  by  the  evangelist  against  any  such  mis¬ 
apprehension  ?  But  your  whole  scheme,  my  dear 
friend,  is  built  upon  no  other  foundation  than  a  per¬ 
version  of  Scripture  ; — for  a  God  who  cannot  will  the 
destruction  of  the  wicked  is  not  the  God  of  the  Bible. 
The  cause  and  the  effect  in  this  case  mutually  operate 
to  strengthen  each  other  ;  and  a  false  scheme  once  em¬ 
braced  is  one  of  the  strongest  temptations  to  a  contin¬ 
ued  perseverance  in  error. 

Here  then,  is  the  foundation  of  your  false  reason¬ 
ings — the  evil  root  of  all  the  bitter  fruit  of  your  sys¬ 
tem.  You  tenaciously  embrace  this  sentiment,  that 


148 


light  is  the  cause  by  which  the  power  of  sin  is  destroy¬ 
ed,  and  the  sinner’s  reconciliation  to  God  effected,  by 
the  natural  ability  and  agency  of  the  creature;  They 
are  born  therefore,  not  of  God,  but  by  the  will  of  man. 
Here  you  entirely  mistake  the  point ;  and  to  secure 
the  free  and  efficient  agency  of  the  creature,  rob  God 
of  his  prerogative,  in  the  most  glorious  of  his  works. 
It  is  not  light,  but  power,  'physical  ■power,  which  is  the 
cause,  or  the  sufficient  grace,  that  destroys  the  power 
of  sin,  and  causes  the  impenitent  to  repent  and  believe. 
Light  is  the  effect  and  not  the  cause.  When  the  veil 
of  blindness  is  removed  from  the  heart  by  divine  pow¬ 
er,  then  the  light  of  truth  shines  into  the  heart,  “  to 
give  the  light  of  the  knowledge  of  the  glory  of  God  in 
the  face  of  Jesus  Christ.”  This  is  the  uniform  instruc¬ 
tion  of  Scripture,  Paul  says,  “that  your  faith  may 
stand,  not  in  the  wisdom  of  men,  but  in  the  power  of 
God — who  fulfilleth  in  you  the  whole  good  pleasure 
of  his  goodness,  and  the  work  of  faith  with  power." 
Thy  people  shall  be  willing  in  the  day  of  th y  power  ” 
As  it  was  in  the  natural  so  it  was  in  the  spiritual 
creation.  The  exertion  of  power  precedes  light,  as 
the  cause  does  the  effect.  God  said,  “Let  there  be 
light  and  there  was  light.”  The  spiritual  creation  no 
less  than  the  natural,  is  the  work  of  divine  power,  and 
is  celebrated  as  a  more  wonderful  and  glorious  display 
of  omnipotence,  and  as  preeminently  demanding  the 
admiration,  gratitude  and  praise  of  God’s  people. — 
“Behold  I  create  new  heavens  and  a  new  earth,  and 
the  former  shall  not  be  remembered,  nor  come  into 
mind.  But  be  ye  glad  and  rejoice  forever  in  that 
which  I  create,  for  behold  I  create  Jerusalem  a  rejoic¬ 
ing  and  her  people  a  joy.”  Isaiah  Ixv.  17,  18. — Here 
the  glorious  effect  of  redeeming  and  sanctifying  sin¬ 
ners,  and  building  up  the  church  of  Christ,  is  ascribed 
solely  to  divine  power  in  its  most  wonderful  display. 
But  there  is  no  power  simply  in  light,  either  natural 
or  moral  light.  The  man  who  is  naturally  blind,  or 
who  wilfully  shuts  his  eyes,  will  receive  no  light,  or 
see  any  object  in  the  clearest  sun  shine.  The  light 
alone  does  not  compel  him  to  see.  So  that  moral  light 
which  Christ  gives  to  all  mankind,  is  only  in  the  un- 


149 


derstanding,  while  the  natural  heart  is  blind  : — not  one 
ray  of  truth  ever  enters  the  dark  heart  of  the  impeni¬ 
tent  sinner,  let  the  understanding  be  ever  so  highly  il¬ 
luminated.  This  is  expressly  declared,  in  the  5th 
verse  of  the  chapter.  “And  the  light  shineth  in  dark¬ 
ness,  and  the  darkness  comprehended  it  not.”  The 
dark  heart  of  the  impenitent  does  not  comprehend  that 
light,  and  receives  no  impression  or  saving  benefit 
from  that  sufficient  grace,  for  which  you  contend. 

This  chapter,  and  this  part  of  it  which  introduces 
the  gospel  dispensation  begins  where  the  Mosaic  dis¬ 
pensation  ends  ;  and  of  the  last  prophecy  recorded  in 
the  Old  Testament,  viz.  in  the  last  chapter  of  Malachi, 
the  events  in  fulfilment,  are  the  first  recorded  in  the 
New.  That  prophecy  related  to  the  coming  of  Christ, 
and  his  forerunner  John.  The  gospel  begins  with  the 
account  of  their  having  actually  come.  The  prophecy, 
therefore,  may  be  called  in  as  an  aid  to  explain  the  na¬ 
ture  and  design  of  the  event.  And  it  is  expressed 
thus — “  But  unto  you  that  fear  my  name,  shall  the 
Sun  of  Righteousness  arise  with  healing  in  his  wings.” 
That  light,  therefore,  of  the  Sun  of  Righteousness, 
which  lighteth  every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world, 
has  no  healing  effect  upon  impenitent  sinners — for  of 
them  we  read,  “  There  is  no  fear  of  God  before  their 
eyes.”  Rom.  iii.  18.  We  are  therefore  compelled  to 
look  to  some  other  cause  than  light ,  as  a  sufficient 
grace  to  destroy  the  power  of  sin. 

We  will  now  gather  up  the  remaining  fragments  of 
your  objection,  and  collate  them  in  the  form  of  a  short 
dialogue. 

Philemon.  To  forgive  sin  God  only  requires  us  to 
detest  it. 

Aristarchus.  Well — and  what  do  you  thence  in¬ 
fer  ? 

Phil.  The  Holy  Spirit  as  far  as  is  consistent  with 
our  free  agency  is  universally  working  for  its  destruc¬ 
tion. 

Arist.  This  sentiment  cannot  be  correct.  It  is 
already  disproved  by  the  arguments  against  an  univer¬ 
sal  sufficiency  of  grace.  That  our  absolute  depend¬ 
ence,  and  God’s  universal  efficiency  are  perfectly  con- 

13* 


150 


sistent  with  our  free  agency,  I  think  has  been  demon¬ 
strated.  That  God  hardened  the  heart  of  Pharaoh, 
and  that  he  hardens  whom  he  will,  are  the  express  dec¬ 
larations  of  his  word  :  therefore,  it  cannot  bo  true, 
that  he  is  by  his  Spirit,  working  for  the  destruction  of 
sin,  at  the  same  time,  and  in  the  same  subject,  whom 
he  is  hardening  ; — or  that  God  is  universally  working 
for  the  destruction  of  sin,  as  far  as  is  consistent  with 
our  free  agency,  for  then  sin  would  actually  be  des¬ 
troyed  in  all.  Where  do  we  find  any  such  expression 
or  intimation  in  his  word  ?  Many  are  to  be  found  di¬ 
rectly  to  the  contrary — “  For  this  cause,  God  shall 
send  them  strong  delusion,  that  they  should  believe  a 
lie,  that  they  all  might  be  damned,  who  believed  not 
the  truth,  but  had  pleasure  in  unrighteousness.”  2 
Thess.  ii.  11,  12.  It  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  free 
agency  of  any  rational  creature,  for  God,  by  his  al¬ 
mighty  power,  to  destroy  sin  in  him.  Yea,  this  is  the 
only  cause,  by  which  sin  is  ever  destroyed.  “  Thy 
people  shall  be  willing  in  the  day  of  thy  power.” — 
Take  away  this  truth,  and  we  have  no  hope  of  salva¬ 
tion. 

Phil.  - - otherwise  why  is  he  grieved  or  quench¬ 

ed  ? 

Arist.  By  the  opposition  and  wickedness  of  the 
sinner,  whom  he  had  no  design  to  sanctify  by  his  ope¬ 
rations  ; — for  the  same  reason  that  God  is  angry  with 
the  wicked.  That  the  Spirit  of  God  is  grieved  or 
quenched  is  spoken  after  the  manner  of  men,  and  we 
must  be  stupid  indeed,  to  apply  these  terms  literally  to 
God— any  more  than  where  he  is  said  to  repent,  or  to 
have  his  fury  come  up  into  his  face  ;  or,  where  lie 
says,  “  Behold  I  am  pressed  under  you,  as  a  cart  is 
pressed  that  is  full  of  sheaves.”  Amos  ii.  13.  It 
therefore  means  no  more  than  that  God  in  his  holy 
displeasure  with  the  wickedness  and  obstinacy  of  the 
creature,  withdraws  from  him  the  influences  of  his 
Spirit ; — but  this  disproves  the  idea  that  he  is  univer¬ 
sally  workingfor  the  destruction  of  sin. 

Phil.  Those  who  comply  with  his  suggestions  do 
neither  grieve  nor  quench  him. 


151 


Arist.  Truly — and  that  is  because  they  are  made 
the  subjects  of  special  and  distinguishing  grace — made 
willing  in  the  day  of  his  power  : — not  because  they 
never  resisted  ;  but  because  he  actually  destroyed  their 
resistance  by  his  irresistable  grace — which  he  did  not 
in  those  by  whose  opposition  he  was  grieved  and 
quenched. 

Phil.  And  how  can  we  be  so  irrational  as  to  sup¬ 
pose  that  he  singles  out  a  person,  here  and  there,  to 
influence,  when  this  influence  is  of  no  farther  use  to 
him,  than  we  can  suppose  it  to  be  by  considering  it 
universal  ? 

Arist .  Suppositions,  my  friend,  are  not  arguments, 
and  afford  no  conclusive  evidence  of  divine  truth,  I 
ask  in  reply  to  your  suppositions,  how  we  can  be  so 
irrational  as  to  beg  the  very  point  in  controversy,  and 
that  without  the  least  shadow  of  proof?  And  how  we 
can  be  so  daring  as  to  dispute  the  express  declarations 
of  God’s  word,  both  in  the  Old  Testament  and  the 
New  ?  “  I  will  take  you  one  of  a  city,  and  two  of  a 
family,  and  bring  you  to  Zion.”  Jer.  iii.  14.  “Ma¬ 
ny  are  called  but  few  are  chosen.”  Matthew  xx.  10. 
“  Therefore  hath  he  mercy  on  whom  he  will  have 
mercy.”  Rom .  ix.  18.  The  election  hath  obtained  it 
and  the  rest  were  blinded.”  Rom.  xi.  7.  Is  here  no 
distinguishing  grace  ?  Is  it  not  true,  therefore,  that  in 
bringing  men  to  Zion,  or  into  his  true  church,  God  sin¬ 
gles  out  here  and  there  a  person  to  influence  ? 

Phil.  I  suppose  that  ail  we  can  do  with  respect  to 
our  salvation,  is  not  to  thwart  and  obstruct  what  God 
is  doing  for  us.  It  is  he  that  workelh  in  us  both  to 
will  and  to  do. 

Arist.  Indeed  !  many,  no  doubt  will  view  this  an  ea¬ 
sy  way  of  gettingto  heaven,  who  think  that  they  have 
no  opposition  to  God  and  the  grace  of  the  gospel.  But 
unless  God  doth  work  in  us  to  will,  we  shall  forever 
continue  to  oppose  ; — and  while  we  continue  to  op¬ 
pose,  we  cannot  know  that  God  wills  our  salvation,  or 
that  he  is  woring  that  benefit  for  us,  even  by  the  com¬ 
mon  strivings  of  his  Spirit;  for  they  have  no  tendency 
to  destroy  our  opposition  ;  and  the  will  of  God  re¬ 
spects  only  actual  events  ;  both  of  which  have  been 
shewn. 


152 


Of  this,  however,  we  may  be  sure,  that  God  is  sin¬ 
cere  in  the  offer  of  mercy  ;  and  that  the  strivings  of 
his  Spirit  are  to  convince  us  of  truth.  If  we  accept 
the  offer  and  comply  with  the  call  of  the  gospel,  we 
are  sure  of  receiving  the  benefit  of  salvation  : — and 
this  will  leave  us  forever  inexcusable  if  we  reject  his 
offer,  and  resist  the  strivings  of  his  Spirit;  although 
our  salvation  were  never  the  design  of  God. 

Phil.  What  impropriety  is  there  then  in  supposing 
that  this  same  principle,  which  is  nothing  different 
from  conscience  operates  to  the  destruction  of  sin  from 
the  first  moment  we  breathe  ? 

Arist.  There  is  this  evident  impropriety,  because 
conscience  never  does  operate  in  us  the  first  moment 
we  breathe — nor  does  conscience,  or  the  common  stri¬ 
vings  of  God’s  Spirit,  in  any  moment  of  our  whole 
lives,  operate  in  destroying  our  natural  opposition  to 
God.  If  the  principle  of  conscience  by  operating  up¬ 
on  is  gradually  improving  our  moral  state,  and  we  are 
growing  better,  and  better  from  the  first  moment  we 
breathe  ; — at  what  age,  or  at  what  point  of  moral  good¬ 
ness,  must  we  arrive, before  the  work  will  be  effected, and 
our  regeneration  actually  accomplished  ?  Where  would 
you  draw  the  line  of  distinction  between  our  impeni¬ 
tent  and  penitent  state  ?  The  fact  is,  we  continue  to 
grow  worse  instead  of  better  until  we  are  actually  re¬ 
generated  ;  and  regeneration  is  an  immediate  and  in¬ 
stantaneous  effect,  wrought  by  the  power  of  God  ;  and 
cannot  be  a  progressive  change,  as  the  sanctification 
following  it  is.  This  I  claim  has  already  been  fully 
shown. 

The  child,  I  admit,  may  be  regenerated,  or  have  his 
heart  changed  by  the  immediate  power  of  God  as  well 
in  infancy  as  in  adult  age  ;  but  then  it  was  not  the  prin¬ 
ciple  of  conscience,  nor  the  ordinary  strivings  of  the 
Spirit,  nor  any  supposed  universal  sufficiency  of  grace, 
which  effected  this  change  in  either  case,  or  operated 
to  the  destruction  of  sin,  until  the  change  of  regenera¬ 
tion  is  actually  wrought. 

Commending  you  to  the  teaching  of  God’s  Holy 
Spirit, 

I  am  your  affectionate  friend  and  well  wisher. 

Aristarchus. 


LETTER  XII. 


Dear  Sir, 

Your  next  objection  I  shall  now  state,  and  then 
briefly  examine.  It  may  be  easily  obviated,  and  the 
difficulty  removed  if  you  will  patiently  attend  to  fair 
reasoning,  with  a  candid  and  unprejudiced  mind.  You 
say, 

“To  represent  God  as  a  sovereign ,  is  to  represent 
him  as  an  almighty  tyrant,  sporting  with  the  happiness 
of  his  creatures  without  reason  or  rule,  but  merely  be¬ 
cause  he  has  power  to  do  it.  This  constitutes  the  most 
hateful  character  among  men  ;  and  therefore,  must  be 
infinitely  more  unamiable  and  dreadful  when  clothed 
with  omnipotence,  and  swaying  the  sceptre  of  univer^ 
sal  dominion.  This  character  cannot  be  ascribed  to 
that  God  who  is  infinite  in  goodness,  and  spreads  his 
tender  mercies  over  all  the  works  of  his  hands.” 

Your  difficulty,  my  friend,  arises,  principally  from 
misunderstanding,  and  annexing  a  wrong  idea  to  the 
word,  Sovereign,  as  applied  to  the  character  of  the 
Most  High.  Because  earthly  sovereigns  arte  capri¬ 
cious  and  cruel — abuse  their  power — oppress  their 
subjects,  and  act  without  reason  or  right — it  does  not 
follow  that  sovereignty  and  tyranny  are  inseparably 
connected,  or  that  they  are  convertible  terms,  when 
we  ascribe  the  former  to  the  King  Eternal. 

The  three  great  and  essential  requisites  in  a  perfect 
government,  are  wisdom,  goodness  and  power.  Good¬ 
ness  to  be  actuated  with  a  benevolent  regard  to  the 
happiness  of  his  subjects — Wisdom  to  devise  the  best 
plans  for  effecting  the  best  ends — and  Power  sufficient 
to  put  in  execution  the  plans  thus  devised.  It  is  only 
through  the  deficiency  of  some,  or  one,  or  all  of  these, 
that  any  government  fails  of  answering  the  highest 
and  best  ends,  the  promotion  and  security  of  the  gen¬ 
eral  good,  and  happiness  of  its  subjects. 


154 


If  wisdom  be  wanting,  the  measures  of  government, 
however  well  intended,  and  however  faithfully  execu¬ 
ted,  yet  being  founded  in  ignorance  and  folly,  must 
prove  abortive,  and  fail  of  their  end— perhaps  issue  in 
the  ruin  of  those  that  they  were  designed  to  protect. 

If  goodness  were  wanting,  wisdom  would  be  but 
craft  and  cunning,  intrigue  and  cabsl,  and  power  de¬ 
generate  into  arbitrary  and  furious  might. 

If  wisdom  and  goodness  both  were  wanting,  govern¬ 
ment  would  be  dreadful  in  proportion  to  its  power.  It 
would  become  the  most  brutish  despotism,  and  be  di¬ 
rected  to  no  other  end,  but  the  misery  and  ruin  of  its 
subjects. 

It  power  were  wanting,  government  would  be  but  a 
name.  The  best  laws  could  not  be  executed  : — wisdom 
and  goodness  would  be  exercised  in  vain  and  operate 
to  no  end. 

But  these  three  united  constitute  the  perfection  and 
happiness  of  government,  and  preclude  the  possibility 
of  tyranny  and  oppression.  And  who  can  doubt  of 
these  requisites  of  supreme  majesty  belonging  to  that 
great  and  good  Being  who  is  infinite  in  every  perfec¬ 
tion  ?  The  sovereignty  of  God,  therefore,  is  not  op¬ 
pression  and  despotism.  It  does  not  represent  the 
Most  High  as  an  almighty  tyrant ,  sporting  with  the 
happiness  of  his  subjects ,  without  any  reason  or  rule 
hut  merely  because  he  has  power  to  do  it.  Earthly  sove¬ 
reigns  may  and  often  do,  want  wisdom,  or  goodness, 
or  both  ; — but  yet  sovereignty  does  not  imply  folly 
and  malevolence  ;  and  imputes  no  such  imperfections 
to  the  character  and  government  of  the  Most  High 
God. 

We  h  ave  now  considered  the  idea  of  sovereignty  in 
a  negative  view,  and  find  that  it  is  not  tyranny  as  was 
objected,  and  implies  no  defect  of  wisdom  or  good¬ 
ness  ;  and  therefore,  may  belong  to  that  God  who  is 
infinite  in  wisdom  and  spreads  his  tender  mercies  over 
all  the  works  of  his  hands.  As  we  have  seen  in  what 
the  sovereignty  of  God  does  not  consist,  let  us  next 
inquire  in  what  it  does  consist,  and  what  we  are  to  un¬ 
derstand  by  it. 

The  generally  received  idea  of  the  divine  sovereign- 


155 


ty,  appears  to  be  vague  and  indefinite.  It  is  com¬ 
monly  used  to  express  generally  God’s  decreeing  and 
effecting  his  purposes.  But  this  is  blending  sovereign¬ 
ty  with  independence,  and  using  them  both  as  expres¬ 
sing  the  same  thing  and  to  the  same  extent.  This  per¬ 
haps  has  tended  to  darken  the  subject  and  cherish  pop¬ 
ular  prejudices  against  it.  Whereas  these  ideas  are  as 
distinguishable,  and  seem  to  bear  the  same  relation  to 
each  other,  as  germs  and  species.  The  independence 
of  God  respects  his  being,  his  purposes,  and  the  whole 
of  his  government.  His  Sovereignty,  in  my  view,  is 
not  applicable  in  this  extent.  It  is  only  a  branch  of 
his  Independence,  and  respects  but  a  certain  part,  or 
modality  of  his  administration.  The  former  respects 
the  execution  of  his  whole  will — the  latter,  or  his 
Sovereignty,  that  part  of  it  only,  where  his  power  is 
exerted  in  overcorning  resistance ,  and  overruling  and 
directing  an  action,  in  its  nature  and  tendency  evil  to 
the  accomplishment  of  a  holy  and  good  end. 

We  will  further  illustrate  this  distinction,  by  de¬ 
scriptions  and  examples  from  the  sacred  oracles.  The 
following  passages  of  Scripture  are  general  expres¬ 
sions  of  his  Independence.  “  He  doth  according  to 
his  will  in  the  army  of  Heaven  and  among  the  inhabit¬ 
ants  of  the  earth.  Dan.  iv.  35.  “  Who  hath. known  the 
mind  of  the  Lord  or  who  hath  been  his  counsellor  ;  or 
who  hath  first  given  to  him,  and  it  shall  be  recompen¬ 
sed  unto  him  again — for  of  him,  and  through  him  and 
to  him  are  all  things,”  Rom.  xi.  34 — 36.  These  ex¬ 
pressions  are  general  and  respect  the  whole  of  the  di¬ 
vine  purposes  and  government. 

But  the  following  passages  are  particularly  expres¬ 
sive  of  the  divine  sovereignty.  “  Thine  arrows  are 
sharp  in  the  hearts  of  the  king’s  enemies,  whereby  the 
people  fall  under  thee.  Psalms  x lv.  5.  “Thy  people 
shall  be  willing  in  the  day  of  thy  power.”  Psalms  cx. 
3.  “  Surely  the  wrath  of  man  shall  praise  thee,  and 

the  remainder  of  wrath  thou  wilt  restrain.”  Psalms 
Lxxvi.  10.  “  Therefore  hath  he  mercy  on  whom  he  will 
have  mercy.”  Rom.  ix.  18.  “  Casting  down  imagina¬ 

tions,  and  every  high  thing  that  exalteth  itself  against 
the  knowledge  of  God,  and  bringing  into  captivity 


156 


every  thought  to  the  obedience  of  Christ.”  2  Cor.  x: 
5.  tkFor  he  must  reign  till  he  hath  put  all  enemies 
under  his  feet.”  1.  Cor.  xv.  25.  These  passages,  I 
conceive,  are  peculiarly  expressive  of  the  divine  sove¬ 
reignty,  and  point  out  its  distinguishing  properties  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  deffinition  given. 

If  this  view  be  just,  God  did  not  act  as  a  sovereign 
simply  in  hardening  the  heart  of  Pharaoh.  This  was 
an  exercise  of  his  independence  ;  of  his  supreme  right 
of  universal  disposal.  There  was  no  resistance  to  this 
on  the  part  of  Pharaoh — he  hardened  his  own  heart. 
But  in  sending  plagues  upon  Pharaoh — in  restraining 
him  from  the  accomplishment  of  his  purposes — in  op¬ 
posing  and  overcoming  his  resistance,  and  in  overru¬ 
ling  his  wickedness  to  the  accomplishment  of  his  own 
end,  the  glory  of  his  great  name  : — in  all  these  respects, 
God  acted  as  a  Sovereign. 

But  d  oes  it  thence  follow,  that,  in  all  these,  the  glo¬ 
rious  Majesty  of  Heaven  sported  with  the  happiness 
of  his  subjects? — that  he  acted  in  an  arbitrary  and  ca¬ 
pricious  manner,  without  any  reason  or  rule,  and  mere¬ 
ly  because  he  had  power  to  do  it?  Is  such  a  being  to 
be  abhorred  and  dreaded  in  proportion  to  his  power, 
and  the  extent  of  his  dominion,  who  acts  invariably 
with  the  most  benevolent  views,  directed  by  infinite 
wisdom,  to  the  highest  and  best  end,  the  greatest  pos¬ 
sible  general  happiness  of  his  kingdom  ?  Nothing  can 
be  more  absurd,  not  to  say  impious,  than  such  a  con¬ 
clusion.  I  cannot,  therefore  but  hope  that  your  mind 
will  be  satisfied  on  this  subject :  and  I  pass  to  your 
next  objection. 

“  Hath  God  any  where  in  his  word,  represented  that 
the  good  of  the  general  system,  requires  the  destruc¬ 
tion  of  a  part  of  the  human  race  ?  I  can  discover  noth¬ 
ing  of  this  kind,  and  I  conceive  it  to  be  false  deductions 
that  have  led  any  one  to  believe  it.  But  if  there  be 
such  a  necessity  as  you  contend  for,  I  cannot  recon¬ 
cile  it  to  this  declaration  of  Scripture,  the  “  Lord  is 
long  suffering  to  usward  not  willing  that  any  such  per- 
ish, but  that  all  should  comeho  repentance.”  2.  Pet.iii.  9. 

My  d  ear  Sir,  art  thou  a  believer  in  divine  revela¬ 
tion,  with  such  an  understanding  of  the  Bible?  Dost 


157 


thou  profess  such  a  sentiment  as  this,  and  yet  not  em- 
brace  the  faith  of  universal  salvation.  If  so,  I  must 
tell  thee,  thou  art  not  vet  initiated  into  a  thorough  un¬ 
derstanding  of  thine  own  scheme.  Universalists  are 
even  more  self  consistent.  This  is  a  foundation  stone 
upon  which  they  build — that,  God  is  a  being  of  mere 
mercy  ; — that  it  is  a  necessary  fruit  of  his  infinite 
goodness,  to  make  all  men  happy,  as  the  only  means 
of  effecting  the  greatest  genera]  good  of  his  system. — 
They  pursue  the  sentiment  through,  in  its  natural  and 
necessary  consequences — Arminians  stop  short  and  an¬ 
nex  the  doctrine  of  a  partial  salvation,  a  consequence 
which  has  no  premises  in  their  plan,  but  is  directly  op¬ 
posed  to  the  spirit  and  tendency  of  their  first  princi¬ 
ples.  For  if  the  good  of  the  general  system  does  not 
require  the  punishment  of  any  part  of  the  human  race — 
then  that  good  requires  the  salvation  of  all ;  and  must 
be  impaired  and  diminished  by  the  destruction  of  any  ; 
and  it  would  be  inconsistent  with  the  infinite  wisdom 
and  goodness  of  the  great  Governour  of  the  world,  to 
inflict  misery  upon  any  individual  of  the  human  race. 
The  everlasting  punishment  of  the  finally  impenitent, 
would  reflect  infinite  disgrace  upon  his  character,  and 
stand  as  an  eternal  blot  in  his  government.  And  has 
he  not  in  his  word  most  solemnly  threatened  them 
with  endless  punishment,  and  pledged  his  truth  for  its 
execution,  declaring  that  they  shall  go  away  into  ever¬ 
lasting  punishment — that  they  shall  be  “punished  with 
everlasting  destruction  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord, 
and  the  glory  of  his  power?”  Math.  xxv.  46.  and  2 
Thess.  i.  9.  This  idea  is  not  imaginary,  but  real,  per¬ 
manent,  incontrovertible  truth.  A  minute’s  candid 
attention  would  issue  in  the  conviction.  I  bring  no 
railing  accusation.  The  subject  is  too  serious  too  near 
my  heart,  for  ridicule  or  satire.  I  have  no  disposition 
to  reproach,  but  a  most  earnest  desire  to  convince.  It 
is  not  from  the  warmth  of  sectarian  zeal,  but  from  an 
honest  consciousness  of  truth  and  in  opposition  to  a 
sentiment  which  however  intended,  reflects  high  dis- 
honour  upon  the  character  of  God. 

Permit  me  to  ask,  is  the  administration  of  justice  un¬ 
essential  to  a  good  government  ?  Is  the  general  hap- 

14 


158 


piness  of  a  state  or  nation  unconcerned  in  the  regular 
execution  of  good  laws  ;  and  the  punishment  of  offen¬ 
ders  ?  Could  the  general  good  be  in  any  measure  se¬ 
cured  or  government,  even  have,a  being,  if  the  laws 
had  either  no  sanctions,  annexed  to  them,  or  had  sanc¬ 
tions  which  were  never  executed ;  and  out  of  all  the 
existing  offenders,  let  their  crimes  be  ever  so  great, 
not  one  should  ever  be  punished?  Who  would  not 
blush  to  answer  these  questions  in  the  affirmative  ? 
Reason  and  common  sense  say,  No.  Such  an  admin¬ 
istration  would  be  no  other  than  the  prostration  of  all 
government,  and  issue  in  national  ruin.  How  then 
can  any  one  presume  to  say,  and  that  too  with  a  so¬ 
lemn  appeal  to  the  word  of  God,  that  the  general  good 
of  his  kingdom,  does  not  require  the  punishment 
threatened  in  his  law,  denouncing  destruction  upon 
the  disobedient,  to  be  executed  upon  any  of  the  human 
race  ;  and  that  it  is  false  deductions  which  have  led  any 
one  to  believe  it ;  when  all  mankind  are  rebels  to  his 
government,  and  guilty  of  high  treason  against  the 
king  of  heaven.  The  destruction  of  a  part  of  the  hu¬ 
man  race,  is  therefore  but  the  execution  of  justice,  ab¬ 
solutely  necessary  to  the  honour  of  the  lawgiver,  and 
the  security  of  the  general  good  of  his  moral  kingdom. 
It  is  but  the  due  desert  and  just  punishment  of  the  final¬ 
ly  impenitent,  and  is  fitly  called  destruction,  because 
great  in  degree  and  eternal  in  duration.  But  is  the 
government  of  God  less  wise  and  perfect  than  that  of 
men.  If  the  threatenings  of  God’s  law  should  never 
be  executed,  his  government  must  sink  into  contempt, 
and  all  the  happiness  of  ' his  kingdom  be  eternally  ru¬ 
ined.  Can  it  be  true,  then,  that  the  good  of  the  gen¬ 
eral  system  does  not  require  the  destruction  of  any 
part  of  the  human  race  ?  Can  that  doctrine  be  the  re¬ 
sult  of  false  reasoning,  which  the  exercise  of  our  rea¬ 
son  must  compel  us  to  believe  ?  Can  that  faith  be  the 
fruit  of  false  deductions,  which  is  ultimately  founded 
upon  the  unchangable  perfections  of  God,  and  flows  as 
a  natural  and  necessary  consequence  from  those  prem¬ 
ises?  This  is  most  certain,  however  paradoxical  it 
may  appear  to  superficial  thinkers,  that  if  God  be  infi¬ 
nitely  wise  and  good,  his  government,  which  is  a  fruit 


159 


of  his  character  must  be  conformable  to  it — that  is,  it 
must  be  most  benevolent,  and  of  all  possible  plans,  the 
wisest  and  best — the  best  suited  to  exhibit  his  true 
character,  and  effect  the  greatest  possible  general  good. 
And  can  we  say,  that  the  punishment  of  the  finally 
impenitent,  is  unnecessary  to  the  honour  of  the  divine 
character — that  the  destruction  of  a  part  of  the  human 
race  has  no  place  in  the  government  of  God,  and  that 
the  general  good  of  his  system  does  not  require  it? 
Yet,  Sir,  you  assert  that  you  can  find  no  representa¬ 
tion  of  this  kind  in  Scripture  : — What,  when  every 
threatening  of  God’s  word,  every  expression  of  his  un- 
changable  determination  to  punish  and  destroy  the  im¬ 
penitent,  is  an  unequivocal  declaration  of  it  ?  what, 
when  he  tells  us  that  he  hath  made  all  things  for  him¬ 
self,  and  the  wicked  for  the  day  of  evil  ?  Prov.  xvi.  4. 
What,  when  the  heavenly  host  are  represented  as  re¬ 
joicing  in  view  of  the  final  and  everlasting  destruction 
of  the  wicked  actually  accomplished,  and  striking  an¬ 
thems  of  the  highest  praise  and  thanksgiving  to  God 
for  this  most  glorious  display  of  4fis  justice,  saying, 
“Alleluia,  salvation  and  glory  and  honour  and  power, 
unto  the  Lord  our  God,  for  true  and  righteous  are  his 
judgments.”  Ret.  xix.  The  whole  book  of  God  is  re¬ 
plete  with  the  most  clear  and  pointed  declarations  of 
his  holy  anger  against  sin,  and  his  inflexible  justice. — 
H  is  law  is  sanctioned  with  the  most  tremendous  pen¬ 
alty.  It  threatens  eternal  death  to  the  offender — “Curs¬ 
ed  is  every  one  that  continueth  not  in  all  things  written 
in  the  book  of  the  law  to  do  them.”  Deut .  xxvii.  26. 
The  soul  that  sinneth  it  shall  die.”  Ezekiel  xviii.  4. 
God  will  by  no  means  clear  the  guilty.  Exod ,  xxxiv. 
7.  He  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned.  Mark  xvi. 
16.  These  shall  go  away  into  everlasting  punishment. 
Math ,  xxv.  40.  And  this  is  a  stamp  of  divinity  upon 
the  Bible.  It  is  a  distinguishing  beauty  and  glory  of 
God’s  word,  and  a  glowing  evidence  of  its  truth,  that 
it  expresses  the  divine  displeasure  at  all  kinds  and  de¬ 
grees  of  moral  evil — that  it  uniformly  represents  wick¬ 
edness  as  the  object  of  the  divine  hatred,  and  the  anger 
of  God  against  sin  to  be  in  proportion  to  its  demerit. 
Were  it  otherwise  we  never  could  rationally  believ# 


11 


]60 

that  the  Scriptures  came  from  a  good  God — for  they 
would  not  evidence  his  regard  to  the  happiness  of  be¬ 
ing.  They  would  not  exhibit  the  divine  character  as 
a  lover  and  rewarder  of  righteousness,  and  a  hater  and 
punisher  of  iniquity.  All  the  threatenings  of  God’s 
word — all  its  awful  denunciations  against  his  enemies, 
evidence  his  infinite  regard  to  the  happiness  of  his 
moral  kingdom  and  are  so  many  declarations  of  that 
truth,  which  I  am  grieved  to  hear  you  deny — that  both 
his  holy  character  and  the  good  of  his  general  system 
absolutely  require  the  display  of  his  justice  in  the  pun¬ 
ishment  of  his  enemies — or  the  destruction  of  a  part 
of  the  human  race.  As  God  is  love,  his  anger  can  be 
no  other  than  his  dislike  and  abhorrence  of  those  ac¬ 
tions  in  creatures,  which  are  destructive  of  the  happi¬ 
ness  that  his  goodness  inclines  him  to  produce.  God’s 
love  inclines  him  to  do  good,  and  to  be  pleased  with 
that  in  creatures,  which  tends  to  promote  happiness. 
His  anger  is  his  dislike  and  abhorrence  of  those  moral 
actions  which  are  subversive  of  happiness.  The  exer¬ 
cise  of  this  love  in  God  in  opposing  sin  and  the  ways 
of  the  wicked,  is  his  anger.  Iiis  anger  against  sin  is 
the  exercise  of  his  love  to  the  happiness  of  being  as 
much  so  as  his  approbation  of  righteousness,  and  his 
complacence  in  moral  virtue.  His  anger  is  the  dis¬ 
pleasure  of  goodness,  the  necessary  operation  of  good¬ 
ness  in  abhoring  and  opposing  that,  which  in  its  nat¬ 
ural  tendency  is  hurtful  and  destructive  to  the  general 
welfare. 

If  then  the  divine  anger  against  the  wicked  be  the 
natural  and  essential  operation  of  God’s  goodness, 
which  none  can  doubt,  we  may  hence  safely,  and  with¬ 
out  any  danger  of  false  deductions,  conclude,  that  the 
fruits  and  effects  of  it  will  infallibly  be  made  to  ap¬ 
pear  in  his  government : — otherwise,  the  external  evi¬ 
dence  to  his  creatures  of  the  perfection  of  his  good¬ 
ness,  or  his  infinite  regard  to  the  happiness  of  being, 
must  be  defective  ; — Therefore  both  his  character  and 
the  good  of  the  general  system  equally  require,  that, 
the  benevolent  anger  existing  in  the  divine  mind  against 
sinners  should  be  expressed  by  sensible  fruits,  in  the 


161 


punishment  of  all  the  impenitent  among  the  human 
race. 

It  is  therefore,  from  the  infinitely  pure  nature  of 
God,  and  the  perfection  of  his  goodness,  that  the  cer¬ 
tainty  of  the  sinner’s  destruction  arises.  Were  the 
Deity  less  good,  there  would  be  more  reason  to  expect, 
that  impenitent  sinners  might  escape  : — but  if  God 
be  infinitely  good,  this  goodness  excludes  all  possibili¬ 
ty  of  it. 

So  far,  therefore,  are  we  from  having  any  reason  to 
be  dissatisfied  with  that  character  of  God,  which  ori¬ 
ginates  the  necessity,  and  certainty  of  the  sinner’s  de¬ 
struction,  that  we  have  every  reason  to  love  it,  and 
rejoice  in  it,  just  the  same  reason,  as  we  have  to  esteem 
the  character  of  a  civil  ruler,  which  is  the  terror  of 
thieves,  robbers,  murderers  and  destroyers  of  the  pub¬ 
lic  peace  :  for  were  it  not  for  this  character  of  God, 
there  would  be  no  peace  or  safety  under  his  govern¬ 
ment. 

And  now,  my  friend,  I  appeal  to  your  candour  and 
your  conscience,  whether  this  reasoning  be  not  ration¬ 
al,  scriptural,  and  conclusive.  Is  this  to  be  set  down, 
as  one  of  thos e  false  deductions,  which  draw  us  away 
from  the  truth,  and  lead  us  to  believe,  that  the  good  of 
the  general  system  requires  the  destruction  of  a  part 
of  the  human  race.  We  may  conclude  with  certainty, 
upon  this  principle,  that  if  the  good  of  the  general 
system  does  not  require  the  destruction  of  any  part  of 
the  human  race — God  will  never  destroy  them— -but 
save  all  mankind — for  his  infinite  wisdom  and  good¬ 
ness  are  engaged  to  promote  and  secure,  in  the  most 
effectual  manner  the  greatest  possible  general  good  of 
his  system.  And  he  is  a  being  too  wise  to  mistake  the 
best  means  for  accomplishing  that  important  end.  He 
is  a  being  too  good  to  sport  with  the  happiness  of  his 
creatures,  or  wantonly  to  inflict  needless  misery  upon 
any  part  of  his  moral  system. 

But,  you  say,-  if  there  he  such  a  necessity  as  you 
contend  for,  I  am  incapable  of  reconciling  it  to  this  de¬ 
claration  of  Scripture ,  “  That  the  Lord  is  long  suffer¬ 
ing  to  usward — not  willing  that  any  should  perish,  but 
that  all  should  come  to  repentance.” 

14* 


162 


This  is  because  you  misunderstand  the  passage,  ap¬ 
ply  it  in  a  sense  contrary  to  its  most  obvious  and  ne¬ 
cessary  meaning.  This  will  appear  when  we  come  to 
exame  it  in  its  connection. 

The  text  is  the  words  of  Peter,  (2.  Peter  iii.  9.) — • 
But  to  whom,  and  of  whom  is  the  apostle  here  speak¬ 
ing  ?  This  was  an  important  point  of  attention,  which, 
however,  you  have  quite  overlooked.  Who  were 
meant  to  be  included  in  the  word,  us,  must  determine 
the  question,  and  show  how  far  the  words  any  and  all 
are' to  be  extended.  Is  the  apostle  speaking  to  or  o/all 
mankind?  This  is  not  certain  from  the  phraseology — 
for  the  word,  all,  according  to  the  occasion  of  the 
speaker  or  writer,  may  be  as  properly  applied  to  a  part 
as  to  the  whole.  This  word  all  may  as  fitly  apply  to 
the  inhabitants  of  New  England,  if  no  greater  number 
of  people  were  the  antecedent  subject — as  when  speak¬ 
ing  upon  a  more  extensive  scale  it  is  applied  to  the 
whole  human  race. 

This  and  the  former  epistle  of  Peter  are  styled, 
Epistles  general — yet  they  both  have  a  particular 
direction — a  limited  address.  The  first  epistle  is  ad¬ 
dressed  thus — “Peter,  an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  to 
the  strangers  scattered  throughout  Pontus,  Galatia, 
Cappadocia,  Asia  and  Bythinia — elect  according  to  the 
foreknowledge  of  God  the  Father.”  The  second 
epistle,  which  contains  the  passage  before  us,  is  intro¬ 
duced  and  addressed  in  the  following  manner.  “  Si¬ 
mon  Peter,  a  servant  of  Jesus  Christ,  to  them  that 
have  obtained  like  precious  faith  with  us,  through  the 
righteousness  of  God  and  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ.” 
So  that  it  is  most  evidently  the  elect — true  believers — 
his  beloved  brethren  in  Christ,  and  those  only,  to  whom 
he  directs  his  epistles.  These,  including  himself,  are 
the  only  persons,  to  whom  and  of  whom  lie  is  speak¬ 
ing,  and  whom  he  means  to  implicate  in  the  words  us, 
any,  and  all,  in  the  forecited  passage.  The  chapter 
which  contains  it  he  begins  thus,  “  This  second  epis¬ 
tle,  Beloved ,  I  now  write  unto  you,  in  both  which  I  stir 
up  your  pure  minds,  by  way  of  remembrance.”  Here 
still  he  is  addressing  only  the  saints — his  Christian 
brethren.  The  epithet,  beloved,  is  never  applied  by 


163 


the  apostle  to  any  other.  And  this  address  without 
any  apostrophe  he  continues  throughout  the  chapter 
which  ends  the  epistle.  In  the  verse  immediately  pre¬ 
ceding  the  text,  he  repeats  the  appellation — so  that  we 
cannot  mistake.  I  will  cite  it  at  large,  as  it  will  cast 
still  further  light  upon  the  passage — “  But,  beloved ,  be 
not  ignorant  of  this  one  thing  that  one  day  is  with 
the  Lord  as  a  thousand  years,  and  a  thousand  years  as 
one  day.  The  Lord  is  not  slack  concerning  his  prom¬ 
ise  as  some  men  count  slackness — but  is  long  suffering 
to  usward,  not  willing  that  any  [of  us  his  elect]  should 
perish — but  that  all  [of  us]  should  come  to  repentance.” 
The  words  any  and  all  refer  only  to  the  elect — they 
cannot  be  applied  in  any  greater  extent  than  the  word 
ns,  with  any  propriety  of  speech,  or  without  torturing 
the  manifesTsense  of  the  passage  in  a  very  arbitrary 
manner.  Us  is  the  antecedent,  any  and  all  the  rela¬ 
tives,  in  which  the  antecedent  is  necessarily  under¬ 
stood. 

The  drift  and  design  of  the  apostle  in  the  whole  pas¬ 
sage,  was  evidently,  to  encourage  his  Christian  breth¬ 
ren  to  whom  he  wrote,  and  arm  the m  with  motives  of 
patience  and  fortitude,  under  the  insults  and  reproach¬ 
es  of  scoffing  infidels,  and  the  ungodly  world,  who 
ridiculed  and  mocked  at  the  idea  of  Christ’s  second 
coming  to  judgment — “saying,  where  is  the  promise  of 
his  coming,  for  since  the  fathers  fell  asleep,  all  things 
continue  as  they  were,  from  the  beginning  of  the  crea¬ 
tion.”  But  the  apostle,  in  effect,  exhorts  them  to  wait 
with  patience,  and  be  neither  moved,  nor  discouraged 
by  the  reproaches  of  their  enemies,  nor  the  delay  of 
Christ’s  coming  ; — for  a  long  lime  with  us,  is  but  a  short 
time  with  God,  who  views  not  things  as  we  do,  by  suc¬ 
cession  and  parts.  A  thousand  years  are  with  him, 
but  as  one  day,  and  one  day  as  a  thousand  years;  Eter¬ 
nal  duration  is  constantly  present  in  his  view — is  one 
unending  now.  Peter,  therefore  tells  his  Christian 
brethren  that  they  had  no  reason  to  faint,  or  doubt  the 
divine  faithfulness,  because  Christ  did  not  immediately 
come  to  Judgment,  for  he  would  not  delay  beyond  the 
proper  time.  In  the  meanwhile,  this  visible  material 
earth  and  heavens  was  reserved  in  store  as  the  place 


and  fuel  for  the  perdition  of  ungodly  men.  “Yet” 
saith  he  “the  Lord  is  not  slack  concerning  his  promise 
as  some  men  count  slackness — that  is,  as  these  scoffers 
count  slackness,  but  is  long  suffering  to  usward  ” — 
that  is,  for  our  sake — it  is  all  for  our  benefit.  He  de¬ 
lays  the  final  punishment  of  the  wicked,  and  his  last 
coming  to  judgment,  for  the  sake  of  his  elect,  that  shall 
hereafter  be  born,  in  the  various  succeeding  ages  of  the 
world,  to  the  end  of  time — that  they  all  in  their  turn 
upon  the  stage  of  probation,  might  be  called  in.  The 
Lord  is  not  willing  that  any  of  his  elect  shall  perish, 
but  determines  that  all  of  them  shall  come  to  repent¬ 
ance. 

This  is  the  obvious  and  legitimate  sense  of  the  pas¬ 
sage,  as  any  one  may  be  convinced  who  will  read  it  in 
its  connection,  with  any  attention  or  candour.  It  ex¬ 
presses  the  purpose  of  God  towards  his  elect  only — 
that  he  wills  their  salvation,  and  every  thing  necessa¬ 
ry  to  that  end.  Yet,  my  dear  Sir,  while  intent  only 
upon  the  the  establishment  of  your  favourite  point, 
you  have  overlooked  the  obvious  and  only  true  mean¬ 
ing  of  the  passage,  and  given  it  an  application  to  all 
mankind.  Hoping  that  we  may  eventually  see  alike — 
be  united  in  the  truth,  and  speak  the  same  thing — 

I  am  respectfully  yours, 

Aristarchus. 


LETTER  XIII. 


Dear  Sir, 

Your  next  objection  is  quite  plausible,  and  to  some 
perhaps  may  appear  unanswerable,  and  yet  it  cannot 
be  well  founded.  I  wish  to  have  every  objection  that 


165 


is  made,  or  can  be  made,  brought  forward,  and  fairly 
tested  by  the  light  of  reason  and  revelation.  Let  the 
points  of  truth  which  are  already  established  be  made 
to  bear  upon  this  objection,  and  I  think  it  will  be  obvi¬ 
ated  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  candid  examiner. 

“The  idea  of  God’s  having  an  eternal  purpose  to 
save  but  a  certain,  particular  part  of  mankind,  and  his 
effecting  the  impenitency  and  unbelief  of  the  nonelect, 
cannot  consist  with  the  divine  sincerity,  in  that  univer¬ 
sal  invitation,  “  Look  unto  me  all  the  ends  of  the 
earth  and  be  ye  saved.” — Isaiah  xlv.  22. 

This  objection,  formidable  as  it  appears,  and  there 
are  none  perhaps  more  imposing,  will  appear  without 
sufficient  and  real  foundation,  when  examined  in  the 
light  of  several  important  points  of  divine  truth,  al¬ 
ready  established  by  scripture  proofs.  It  has,  as  I 
think,  been  demonstrated,  that  moral  necessity,  and 
natural  liberty  are  consistent — -that  the  doctrines  of 
eternal  election,  and  universal  divine  agency,  do  not 
in  the  least  interfere  with  the  freedom  of  the  will  and 
the  moral  agency  of  the  creature  ; — that  our  actions 
are  our  own,  though  absolutely  dependent — and  the 
inquiry,  whence  their  origin,  has  no  bearing  upon  their 
merits  and  is  no  criterion  of  guilt  or  innocence  :  And 
now,  if  we  will  keep  our  eyes  open  to  the  light  of  these 
truths  what  grounds  for  the  present  objection  can  we 
discover  ?  What  difficulty  will  remain  in  the  way,  of 
seeing  the  consistency  between  them  and  the  divine 
sincerity  in  the  universal  invitations  of  the  gospel  ?  It 
is  merely  by  our  inattention  to  these  truths  that  we  are 
led  into  difficulty  upon  this  point.  A  false  principle 
naturally  produces  false  consequences.  Whenever  we 
lose  sight  of  our  own  guilt,  and  cast  the  blame  of  our 
impenitency  and  unbelief  upon  God — we  shut  out  the 
light  of  truth,  and  shroud  our  path  in  darkness  and 
confusion.  We  are  lost  in  a  labyrinth  of  errors,  and 
stumble  at  every  step  in  an  endless  train  of  inconsist¬ 
encies.  But  only  let  us  realize  this  truth,  that  the 
guilt  of  rejecting  Christ,  and  the  invitations  of  the 
gospel  is  wholly  our  own,  and  how  can  we  charge  in¬ 
sincerity  upon  God,  because  he  is  a  sovereign  dispen¬ 
ser  of  his  grace,  and  has  mercy  on  whom  he  will  have 


166 


mercy  ?  Is  it  necessary  to  evince  the  sincerity  of  his 
invitations,  that  God  should  make  the  sinner  willing  to 
accept  them?  Is  not  the  great  oath  which  he  hath 
sworn  sufficient  for  the  purpose?  “  As  I  live,  saith  the 
Lord  God,  I  have  no  pleasure  in  the  death  of  the  wick¬ 
ed — but  that  the  wicked  turn  from  his  way  and  live.” 
.Ezekiel  xxxiii.  1 1. — in  connection  with  that  solemn 
declaration  of  our  Saviour,  “  Him  that  cometh  unto 
me,  I  will  in  no  wise  cast  out.”  This  immediately  fol¬ 
lows  his  declaration  of  God’s  eternal  purpose — “  All 
that  the  Father  hath  given  me,  shall  come  to  me.” 

I  may  be  sincere  in  offering  a  gift,  even  if  I  know  at 
the  time,  that  the  person  to  whom  I  offer  it  will  not  ac¬ 
cept  it  ; — as  sincere  as  if  I  knew  that  he  would.  As  it 
respects  me,  the  gift  might  be  offered,  equally  freely  in 
both  cases.  But,  if  after  I  have  offered  the  gift,  he 
actually  accepts  it,  and  I  then  refuse  to  bestowr  it,  he 
may  justly  charge  me  with  insincerity.  But  does  this 
circumstance  apply  to  the  case  in  question  ?  Was  there 
ever  a  sinner  cast  out,  who  came  to  Christ?  Did  any 
ever  accept  the  invitation  of  the  gospel,  who  failed  of 
receiving  its  benefits  ?  Until  this  takes  place,  the  sove¬ 
reignty  of  God  affords  no  ground  for  the  objection. 

But  you  will  reply,  this  comparison  is  not  parallel. 
It  does  not  reach  the  case.  Annex  another  circum¬ 
stance  to  the  supposition,  which  is  necessary  to  make 
it  parallel,  and  we  will  then  inquire  whether  the  same 
conclusion  will  follow.  Admit  that  the  person  to 
whom  you  oiler  the  gift,  is  absolutely  dependent  on 
you,  for  his  existence,  and  for  all  his  exercises  ;  and 
that  you  not  only  know  that  he  will  not  accept  your 
offer,  but  you  determine  that  he  shall  not ;  and  at  the 
very  time  of  making  it,  you  effect  by  your  own  posi¬ 
tive  agency,  his  act  of  refusing  the  offer.  This  would 
be  a  parallel  case.  And  would  not  this  be  just  as  in¬ 
consistent  with  your  sincerity  as  if  you  had  refused 
him  after  his  actual  acceptance  of  the  offer? 

I  admit  the  comparison  as  it  is  stated,  but  deny  that 
any  such  consequences  will  follow.  This  case  is  dif¬ 
ferent  in  its  nature  from  that  in  which  I  refuse  him  af¬ 
ter  his  acceptance.  In  that  he  was  cut  off  from  the 
benefit  by  my  fault.  In  the  last  case  solely  by  his 


167 


own.  For  only  admit,  what  is  already  fully  proved, 
that  the  absolute  dependence  of  the  man  makes  him 
neither  a  machine,  nor  a  brute,  but  perfectly  consists 
with  his  freedom  and  moral  agency — that  the  nature  of 
the  effect  is  distinct  from,  and  may  be  opposite  to  the 
nature  of  its  cause — that  the  act  of  God,  and  that  of 
the  creature  are  perfectly  distinct,  the  one  holy  and 
the  other  sinful;  and  it  must  follow  in  the  case  you 
last  put,  that  the  sinner  is  cut  off  from  receiving  the 
benefit  offered,  by  his  own  act ;  and  his  refusal  to  ac¬ 
cept  the  invitation  of  the  gospel,  is  altogether  his  own 
blame,  and  therefore  there  can  be  no  insincerity  on  the 
part  of  God,  notwithstanding  his  universal  agency  ; — 
for  insincerity  is  inseparable  from  the  imputation  of 
blame.  If  God  therefore,  be  insincere  in  the  univer¬ 
sal  offer  of  the  gospel,  because  he  hath  mercy  on  whom 
he  will  have  mercy,  and  whom  he  will  he  hardeneth — 
or  because  he  worketh  all  things  after  the  counsel  of 
his  own  will — the  sinner  is  completely  exonerated 
from  blame,  in  his  refusing  the  offers  of  mercy,  as  a 
necessary  consequence.  But  if,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  creature  alone  be  blamable,  for  his  unbelief,  then  it 
follows  as  a  necessary  consequence,'  that  God  is  sin¬ 
cere  in  his  offer  of  mercy  to  the  nonelect,  and  in  giving 
that  universal  invitation,  “  Look  unto  me,  all  the  ends 
of  the  earth,  and  be  ye  saved.” 

God  was  sincere  in  offering  to  the  children  of  Israel 
when  in  Egypt,  the  land  of  Canaan,  if  they  would  go 
and  take  possession  of  it — though  for  their  murmur¬ 
ing  and  rebellion  against  God,  they  fell  by  thousands 
in  the  wilderness,  and  finally  none  of  all  that  great 
host  of  six  hundred  and  three  thousand,  five  hundred 
and  fifty  fighting  men,  exclusive  of  their  old  men,  wo¬ 
men  and  children,  who  left  the  land  of  Egypt,  ever 
reached  the  promised  land,  excepting  only  Caleb  and 
Joshua. 

And  God  is  equally  sincere  in  offering  heaven  to  sin¬ 
ners,  of  which  the  earthly  Canaan  was  a  type,  upon 
their  believing  in  his  only  begotten  Son — though  he 
hardeneth  whom  he  will,  and  they  perish  by  thousands 
and  millions  from  under  the  clear  light  of  the  gospel, 
and  with  the  offers  of  mercy  sounding  in  their  ears. 


168 


“The  election  hath  obtained  it,  and  the  rest  were 
blinded” — according  as  it  is  written  God  hath  given 
them  the  spirit  of  slumber — eyes  that  they  should  not 
see  and  ears  that  they  should  not  hear  unto  this  day.” 
Rom.  xi.  7,  8.  And  again  for  this  cause,  God  shall 
send  them  strong  delusion,  that  they  should  believe  a 
lie,  that  they  all  might  be  damned  who  believed  not  the 
truth,  but  had  pleasure  in  unrighteousness.  But  we 
are  bound  to  give  thanks  always  to  God  for  you  breth¬ 
ren,  beloved  of  the  Lord,  because  God  hath  from  the 
beginning  chosen  you  to  salvation,  through  sanctifica¬ 
tion  of  the  spirit  and  belief  of  the  truth.”  2  Thess.  ii. 
11—13. 

If  the  question  now  be  asked  why  is  it  that  a  God 
of  infinite  goodness,  blinds,  hardens,  gives  a  spirit  of 
slumber,  and  sends  strong  delusion  to  those  his  crea¬ 
tures  to  whom  with  infinite  sincerity  he  offers  the  en¬ 
joyment  of  heaven  and  eternal  glory  ? — as  an  answer 
to  the  question,  I  would  point  to  those  words  of  the  ho¬ 
ly  Jesus,  when,  in  the  view  of  this  subject,  he  rejoiced 
in  spirit,  and  in  language  of  the  most  ardent  praise 
and  thanksgiving,  exclaimed,  “  I  thank  thee,  O  Father, 
Lord  of  Heaven  and  earth,  that  thou  hast  hid  these 
things  from  the  wise  and  prudent,  and  hast  revealed 
them  unto  babes  : — Even  so  Father,  for  so  it  seemed 
good  in  thy  sight.”  Matthew  xi.  25,  26.  The  divine 
purpose — that  great  and  important  end,  which  infinite 
wisdom  and  goodness  hath  in  view,  is  eventually  to  be 
accomplished  by  it.  And  should  not  this  satisfy  us, 
that  the  Judge  of  all  the  earth  will  do  right: — that 
though  clouds  and  darkness  are  round  about  him,  yet 
righteousness  and  judgment  are  the  habitation  of  his 
throne?”  Psalms  xcvii.  2.  “  What  I  do  know”  said 

Christ  to  his  disciples,  “ye  know  not,  but  ye  shall 
know  hereafter.”  John  xiii.  7.  The  mysteries  of  di¬ 
vine  providence  shall  be  unfolded  in  the  light  of  celes¬ 
tial  day  with  unspeakable  joy  and  satisfaction  to  all 
the  true  disciples  of  Christ. 

“  This  doctrine  supersedes  the  design  and  benefit  of 
means,  and  cuts  off  all  rational  encouragement  to  the 
use  of  them.  For  let  us  do  what  we  will,  we  cannot  in 
the  least  help  ourselves,  or  better  our  state.  The  un- 


169 


changable  purpose  of  God  will  overrule  all  creature 
exertions,  and  have  its  certain  accomplishment.  Un¬ 
less,  therefore,  I  first  know,  which  it  is  impossible  that 
I  should  know,  that  I  am  elected  to  eternal  life,  I  have 
no  encouragement  to  use  any  means,  or  take  any  pains 
to  obtain  salvation.  And  if  I  could  and  did  know  that 
I  were  elected,  the  use  of  means  would  be  wholly  un¬ 
necessary,  for  the  event  is  certain  and  inevitable.  This 
doctrine,  therefore  has  a  direct  tendency  to  stupify  the 
secure  sinner,  and  drive  the  awakened  one  into  utter 
despair.” 

This  objection,  though  the  most  common  in  the 
mouths  of  mankind  is  yet  of  all  others  the  most  absurd 
and  nonsensical.  A  man  would  be  viewed  as  wanting 
in  common  sense,  who  should  use  this  mode  of  reason¬ 
ing  upon  any  other  subject,  and  in  applying  this  argu¬ 
ment  in  the  common  affairs  of  life,  to  the  visible  and 
daily  effects  in  the  natural  world,  alike  connected  with 
the  use  of  means,  and  equally  depending  upon  the 
great  first  cause. 

Should  a  hungry  man  refuse  to  eat,  till  he  knew  that 
his  food  would  not  strangle  him  in  the  act  of  swallow¬ 
ing  :  and  if  he  certainly  knew  that,  still  refuse  to  eat, 
because  if  he  is  to  be  nourished,  he  will  be  nourished, 
whether  he  feeds  or  fasts, — Or 

Should  a  man  dangerously  sick,  refuse  to  employ  a 
physician,  until  he  certainly  knew  that  his  means  would 
recover  him  to  health,  and  then  refuse  to  take  the 
medicine,  saying  if  I  am  to  recover  I  shall  recover, 
whether  I  live  or  die — Or 

Should  a  husbandman  determine  not  to  plow  or  sow, 
until  he  certainly  knows  that  he  shall  have  a  crop — 
and  by  this  knowledge  be  still  further  confirmed  in  his 
negligence,  saying  if  I  plow  and  sow,  I  shall  have  a 
harvest,  and  therefore  I  will  do  neither — for  I  shall 
have  one  if  it  be  so  decreed. 

These  three  reasoners  would  stand  upon  the  same 
footing  with  the  objector,  and  talk  equally  good  sense. 
But  before  this  knowledge  of  the  divine  purpose  could 
be  obtained,  in  the  neglect  of  the  necessary  means, 
the  hungry  man  would  starve — the  sick  man  would 
die — the  farmer  beg  his  bread,  and  the  objector  lose 

15 


170 


his  soul.  The  fact  is,  God  has  instituted  means  as 
much  in  the  moral  as  in  the  natural  world  ;  and  these 
means  are  as  much  ordained  as  their  end.  They  are 
not  disconnected,  but  inseperably  joined  by  the  divine 
decree,  and  therefore,  in  the  neglect  of  the  means  the 
end  is  unattainable,  and  there  can  be  no  evidence  that 
it  is  ordained.  But  the  impenitent  sinner  can  no  more 
know  that  he  is  not  elected,  than  that  he  is  ;  or  that 
his  use  of  the  means  will  issue  in  the  attainment  of  the 
end.  And  this  same  uncertainty  attends  all  the  cases 
which  I  have  put  of  examples  in  the  natural  world,  but 
at  the  same  time  forms  all  the  ground  of  encourage¬ 
ment  which  there  can  be  to  the  use  of  means. 

The  hungry  man  does  not  know  that  his  food  will 
not  strangle  him  but  the  greater  probability  is,  that  it 
will  not — this  may  afford  him  sufficient  encouragement 
to  feed  himself  as  a  necessary  means  of  preserving 
life. — The  sick  man  does  not  know  that  the  physician’s 
medicine,  will  effect  a  cure,  or  that  it  will  not  aggravate 
his  disorder  and  shorten  the  period  of  his  life — yet  he 
has  sufficient  encouragement  to  use  medicine,  for,  as 
the  case  may  be,  his  health  cannot  be  restored  without 
it.  And  the  farmer  in  the  season  of  sowing  cannot  be 
certain  of  reaping  a  harvest — a  thousand  secondary 
causes  may  operate  to  blast  the  fruits  of  his  labour, 
and  disappoint  him  of  a  harvest':  yet  he  knows  that  in 
neglecting  the  means,  he  has  no  reason  to  hope  for  the 
end,  and  this  affords  him  a  sufficient  motive  to  labour. 

And  the  same  observations  apply  in  a  moral  view  to 
the  case  of  the  sinner.  The  uncertainty  of  his  salva¬ 
tion,  or  rather,  the  possibility  of  his  election,  affords 
him  the  strongest  motive  to  exertion,  which  the  nature 
of  the  case  can  admit.  Could  he  certainly  know, 
while  in  an  impenitent  state,  that  he  was  one  of  God’s 
elect,  his  encouragementto  hope,  though  greater  would 
still  be  only  in  the  use  of  means.  It  would  afford  no 
motive  to  neglect  them. 

A  striking  example  in  proof  of  this  point,  is  given 
us  in  the  history  of  Paul’s  tempestuous  voyage  to 
Rome.  On  his  passage  he  had  an  express  revelation 
from  God,  that  the  whole  ship’s  crew  with  whom  he 
sailed  should  be  saved  from  the  dangers  of  the  sea. 


171 


And  this  event  was  not  a  contingency — a  thing  winch 
might  happen,  or  might  not;  but  equally  certain  and 
infallible  as  the  salvation  of  the  elect ; — it  could  not 
fail  of  effect.  Yet,  we  find,  it  was  necessarily  connec¬ 
ted  with  their  attention  to  the  proper  means  of  their 
safety — for  when  upon  their  near  approach  to  the  isle 
of  Melita,  the  shipmen  proposed  to  leave  the  ship  and 
escape  to  the  land  in  the  boat ;  Paul  said  to  the  centu¬ 
rion  and  to  the  soldiers,  “  except  these  abide  in  the 
ship,  ye  cannot  be  saved.”  xxvii.  31.  But  had 

they  replied  in  the  strain  of  your  argument — If  we  are 
certainly  to  be  saved ,  we  are  in  no  more  danger  in  the 
boat ,  than  in  the  ship ,  for  we  are  sure  of  a  safe  arri¬ 
val  to  land:  and  persisted  in  their  attempt — they  would 
have  been  drowned.  If  it  here  be  asked,  what  if  they 
had  persisted  in  their  attempt  of  landing  in  the  boat, 
and  perished  ?  This  is  but  asking  what  if  the  purpose 
of  God  should  fail  of  accomplishment?  It  was  moral¬ 
ly  impossible  that  it  should  ;  and  therefore  all  the 
means  were  as  necessary,  and  their  persisting  to  land 
in  the  boat  equally  impossible.  If  they  had  persisted 
and  perished,  it  would  only  have  proved,  that  Paul’s 
first  revelation  was  not  from  God,  and  that  it  was  not 
his  purpose  that  the  whole  ship’s  crew  should  be  saved. 
As  rationally,  might  we  ask,  in  the  flight  of  an  unchas¬ 
tened  imagination,  what  if  God,  in  the  translation  of 
Enoch  and  Elijah,  had  let  them  drop  in  their  midway- 
course  to  heaven  ? 

What  reason  then  have  you  to  say,  that  the  doctrine 
of  election  supersedes  the  design  and  benefit  of  means, 
and  cuts  off  all  encouragement  to  the  use  of  them; — 
and  that  if  a  man  be  ignorant  of  his  own  election ,  or 
have  a  certain  knowledge  of  it ,  he  has  no  encourage¬ 
ment  for  the  use  of  means,  in  the  one  case,  and  no  need, 
of  them  in  the  other — that  the  doctrine,  therefore  has  a 
direct  tendency  to  harden  the  stupid  sinner,  andto  drive 
the  awakened  one  into  utter  despair. 

My  dear  fellow  sinner,  have  you  thoroughly  studied 
this  subject  ?  Have  you  fully  realized  all  the  certain 
consequences  of  your  own  plan?  Let  me  only  ask, 
does  a  full  belief  of  absolute  dependence  on  sovereign 
mercy,  tend  to  stupify  the  unawakened  sinner  ?  The 


172 


conduct  and  experience  of  all  mankind  abundantly 
prove  the  falsity  of  this.  He  cannot  realize  his  de¬ 
pendence,  and  continue  in  a  state  of  stupidity.  Will 
a  fixed  and  sensible  belief,  that  his  present  temper  and 
line  of  conduct  will  infallibly  lead  him  to  eternal  dam¬ 
nation,  and  that  unless  he  is  plucked  as  a  brand  from 
the  burning,  the  horrors  of  hell  are  his  certain  portion 
— I  say,  will  the  conviction  of  all  this,  tend  to  steel  his 
conscience  against  the  terrors  of  God’s  law,  and  rock 
him  to  sleep  in  the  cradle  of  carnal  security?  No. 
Directly  the  contrary  effect  will  follow.  It  is  true  that 
sinners  make  use  of  the  doctrine  to  stupify  themselves. 
They  improve  it  as  a  sheathe  to  their  consciences,  while 
busied  in  the  gratification  of  their  base  lusts — but  it  is 
only  by  perverting  it.  It  is  only  because  they  really 
disbelieve  the  doctrine,  that  they  can  continue  in  car¬ 
nal  security,  and  bless  themselves  in  their  iniquities. 
A  realizing  sense  of  absolute  dependence  on  God,  is 
the  most  alarming  thought  that  can  enter  the  mind  of 
the  impenitent  sinner.  Nothing  like  this,  so  thorough¬ 
ly  arouses  him  from  his  lethargy,  excites  him  to  the 
most  vigorous  efforts,  and,  like  a  drowning  man  to 
struggleand  snatch  at  every  twig.  This  is  the  princi¬ 
pal  reason,  why  men  are  so  braced  against  the  convic¬ 
tion,  and  so  opposed  to  the  doctrine  of  election — be¬ 
cause  it  is  such  an  effectual  disturber  of  their  carnal 
peace. 

But,  does  the  probability  of  obtaining  mercy — a 
hope  that  he  may  be  one  of  God’s  elect — a  may  be ,  and 
a  who  can  tell,  that  God  will  be  gracious  and  bestow  par¬ 
doning  mercy  for  the  Redeemer’s  sake, have  a  direct  ten¬ 
dency  to  drive  the  awakened  sinner  into  utter  despair? 
Indeed,  Sir,  this  is  all  that  can  support  him,  and  keep 
him  out  of  despair.  His  encouragement  rests  ultimate¬ 
ly  and  solely  upon  the  doctrine  of  election.  Strike 
this  article  out  of  his  creed — convince  him  that  God 
has  not  elected  any  of  mankind  to  eternal  life,  and  you 
plunge  him  into  the  unmingled  horrors  of  the  damned. 
Even  the  hope  of  a  hope  would  be  cut  off,  and  the  sit¬ 
uation  of  the  whole  human  race  upon  that  hypothesis, 
became  absolutely  and  utterly  desperate,  Cut  off  from 


173 


all  hope,  they  would  have  nothing  to  expect,  but  fiery 
indignation  and  devouring  wrath. 

In  one  view  indeed,  the  doctrine  of  election  will 
tend  to  drive  the  awakened  sinner  into  utter  despair. 
But  it  is  a  despair  devoutly  to  be  wished  that  all  may 
feel  ; — a  despair  begotten  and  confirmed  by  all  his  ex¬ 
ertions  and  use  of  means; — a  despair  which  is  neces¬ 
sary,  and  as  it  were  the  stepping-stone  to  a  good  hope 
of  eternal  life ; — it  is  a  despair  of  help  and  salvation 
from  his  own  righteousness  and  strength.  But  the 
arms  of  divine  mercy  are  extended.  To  them  he  is 
invited  to  flee  for  refuge  and  succour.  With  the  Lord 
Jehovah  there  is  everlasting  strength — and  Christ  is 
the  end  of  the  law  for  righteousness  to  every  one  that 
believes.  He  is  an  all  sufficient  Saviour — able  to  save 
to  the  uttermost  all  who  come  unto  God  by  him. 
“  Work  out  your  own  salvation  with  fear  and  trem¬ 
bling,  for  it  is  God  that  worketh  in  you  both  to  will 
and  to  do  of  his  good  pleasure.”  And  again.  “  Give 
all  diligence  to  make  your  calling  and  election  sure.” 
Phillip ,  ii.  12,  13.  2.  Peter  i.  10.  Eph.  v.  6.  This  can¬ 
not  mean  that  the  divine  purpose  is  not  unchangeable 
and  sure  of  accomplishment ;  but  we  need  the  evidence 
of  our  own  particular  election,  in  order  to  the  comfort 
of  hope  ; — and  this  is  what  the  apostle  here  directs  us 
to  seek  for,  by  the  exhortation  to  make  our  calling  and 
election  sure.  That  is  that  we  realize  to  ourselves, 
the  evidence  and  certainty  of  our  election  by  the  fruits 
of  an  effectual  calling — the  exercises  of  a  holy  heart — 
repentance,  faith  and  good  works.  From  the  view  we 
have  taken  of  the  subject,  under  this  head,  we  are  led 
to  see  that  directly  the  reverse  of  the  objection  is  truth 
— that,  the  doctrine  of  election  confirms  the  design  and 
benefit  of  means,  and  affords  all  rational,  and  possible 
encouragement  to  the  use  of  them.  He,  therefore, 
who  makes  a  different  use  of  the  doctrine,  cuts  himself 
off  from  the  benefit  of  means,  spurns  at  the  invitations 
of  mercy,  and  seals  his  own  reprobation. 

Yours  with  respect, 

Aristarchus. 


15* 


LETTER  XIV, 


Dear  Sir, 

How  surprising  is  it  that  a  doctrine  essential  to  saD 
vation  and  clearly  taught  in  the  Scriptures  of  truth, 
meets  with  the  pointed  and  unrelenting  opposition  of 
mankind.  Yet  such  is  the  melancholy  fact.  And  he 
who  undertakes  to  answer  all  the  objections  brought 
against  this  doctrine,  has  assumed  a  laborious  task. 
He  may  expect  to  find  them  multiplying  around  him 
like  the  heads  of  the  Hydra.  He  may  confute,  and 
reconfute  them.  God  only  can  effectually  convince. 

The  field  of  controversy  which  we  have  already 
pursued  for  a  such  a  length  of  way,  is  not  yet  travelled 
over.  Our  attention  is  now  called  to  the  following  ob¬ 
jection,  and  the  reasons  offered  for  its  support. 

The  doctrine  of  Election  is  inconsistent  with  the  im¬ 
partiality  of  God.  To  represent  God  as  having  from 
eternity,  by  a  positive  and  unchangeable  decree,  elec¬ 
ted  a  certain  definite  number  to  salvation,  being  but  a 
part  of  the  whole  ;  and  given  his  Son  to  die,  with  an 
ultimate  design  solely  for  their  actual  redemption — 
reprobating  all  the  rest,  and  by  a  like  decree  consign¬ 
ing  them  over  to  inevitable,  hopeless  misery  and  end¬ 
less  destruction  ;  is  to  represent  him  as  a  respecter  of 
persons,  and  exercising  such  a  glaring  partiality,  as 
would  be  inconsistent  with  rectitude,  and  derogatory 
to  the  honour  of  his  character. 

Is  it  not,  in  the  eye  of  Reason  and  Scripture  more 
consistent  with  the  justice  and  goodness  of  God,  to  be¬ 
lieve  that  he  makes  the  personal  moral  character  of 
his  creatures,  the  ground  of  retribution,  and  the  rule 
of  his  conduct  towards  them — and  not  an  absolute  ir¬ 
reversible  decree,  established  for  eternal  ages  before 
they  had  any  existence,  and  which  instead  of  being 
grounded  upon  their  moral  character,  decrees  it  and  is 


175 


the  almighty  operating  cause  in  effecting  it.  And 
again, 

Is  it  not  more  rational  to  believe,  that  mankind  form 
their  own  characters — that  none  are  under  a  necessity 
of  perishing — but  all  have  a  chance  for  obtaining  sal¬ 
vation — if  not  equal  with  each  other,  yet  adequate  to 
their  exigencies?  Do  not  the  Scriptures  teach,  that 
the  sinner’s  destruction  proceeds  from  himself,  as  the 
natural  and  necessary  fruit  of  his  own  folly?  “O  Is¬ 
rael  thou  hast  destroyed  thyself,  but  in  me  is  thy  help.” 
Hosea ,  xiii.  9, — And  again,  “  O  Israel  return  unto  the 
Lord  thy  God,  for  thou  hast  fallen  by  thine  iniquity.” 
Hosea.  xiv.  3. 

This  would  be  a  formidable  objection,  if  it  had  any 
foundation,  or  any  thing  for  substance,  but  a  deceptive 
shew.  To  pervert  Scripture,  and  distort  the  truth,  is 
the  only  feasible  method  of  disputing,  where  the  cause 
admits  of  no  other  mode  of  defence.  In  this  way  it  is 
easy,  to  exhibit  wisdom  in  the  garb  of  folty,  and  daub 
the  most  important  and  best  established  thruths  with 
the  most  frightful  colours. 

I  am  satisfied  that  a  mind  which  has  no  restraint 
from  a  sense  of  its  own  weakness— of  its  subordinate 
rank  in  the  creation,  and  the  extreme  danger  of  letting 
the  imagination  loose  upon  some  subjects,  may  very 
plausibly  attack  every  thing  the  most  excellent  and 
venerable  ;  that  it  would  not  be  difficult  to  criticise 
the  creation  itself ;  and  that  if  we  were  to  examine  the 
divine  fabrics,  by  our  ideas  of  reason  and  fitness,  and 
to  use  the  same  method  of  attack,  by  which  many  peo¬ 
ple  assault  the  clearest  and  most  important  doctrines 
of  revealed  religion,  we  might  with  as  good  colour, 
and  equal  success,  make  the  wisdom  and  power  of 
God,  in  his  creation,  appear  to  many  no  better  than 
foolishness.  There  is  an  air  of  plausibility  which  ac¬ 
companies  vulgar  reasonings  and  notions  taken  from 
the  beaten  circle  of  ordinary  experience,  that  is  admi¬ 
rably  suited  to  the  narrow  capacities  of  some,  and  the 
laziness  of  others.  But  this  advantage  is  in  a  great 
measure  lost,  when  a  painful,  comprehensive  survey  of 
a  very  complicated  matter,  and  requiring  a  great  vari¬ 
ety  of  considerations  and  distinctions,  is  to  be  made: 


176 


when  we  must  seek  in  a  profound  subject,  not  only  for 
arguments,  but  for  fresh  materials  of  argument — their 
measures,  and  their  method  of  arrangement : — when 
we  must  go  out  of  the  sphere  of  our  ordinary  ideas  ; 
and  when  we  can  never  walk  sure,  but  by  being  sensi¬ 
ble  that  we  are  blind.  And  this  we  must  do,  when  we 
examine  the  result  of  a  reason  which  is  not  our  own. 
Even  in  matters  which  are,  as  it  were,  just  within  our 
reach,  what  would  become  of  the  world,  if  the  practice 
of  all  moral  duties,  and  the  foundations  of  society  rest¬ 
ed,  upon  having  their  reasons  made  clear  and  demon¬ 
strative  to  every  individual? 

These  observations  are  not  designed  to  evade  the 
objection  by  the  show  of  an  answer,  which  standing 
alone,  would  amount  to  a  virtual  acknowledgement  of 
its  force,  but  simply  to  erace  the  first  impressions  of 
plausible  colourings,  too  often  mistaken  for  truth  ;  and 
to  remove  the  veil  of  obscurity  by  pride  and  prejudice 
interposed  between  the  object  and  the  mental  sight ; — 
that  the  prospect  may  be  open,  and  the  examination 
conducted  with  the  greater  accuracy  and  candour.  I 
will  therefore,  return  from  a  digression  made  in  jus¬ 
tice  to  the  cause  of  truth,  and  attempt  a  direct  and  thor¬ 
ough  investigation  of  the  point  in  controversy. 

You  alledge  that  the  doctrine  of  Election,  by  which 
is  meant  that  the  happiness  or  misery  of  every  individ¬ 
ual  of  Adam’s  race  ultimately  rests  solely  upon  the  di¬ 
vine  purpose,  is  inconsistent  with  the  divine  impartial¬ 
ity,  and  represents  God  as  a  respector  of  persons,  &c. 
This  is  the  fault  found  with  the  doctrine — the  object 
which  first  presents  itself  to  our  view.  The  amend¬ 
ment  which  you  propose  for  a  more  consistent  mode 
of  divine  conduct,  as  it  does  not  affect  the  real  point  in 
dispute,  will  be  reserved  for  a  subject  of  after  consid¬ 
eration. 

Notwithstanding  the  variety  of  suggestions  from 
reason  and  scripture,  and  the  mingled  fragments  of 
truth  and  error,  brought  in  support  of  the  objection — 
yet  its  whole  merits  lie  within  a  narrow  compass,  and 
may  be  determined  almost  in  a  single  glance.  It  turns 
simply  upon  this  point,  and  may  be  conclusively  de¬ 
termined  by  an  answer  to  this  simple  question — viz. 


177 


Does  the  doctrine  of  Election,  as  just  explained,  in¬ 
volve  the  idea  of  any  injustice  in  the  divine  conduct? 
If  it  does — then  the  objection  stands — if  not,  it  falls 
to  the  ground.  This  must  be  the  point  in  general 
issue.  Partiality  always  implies  injustice  ;  and  im¬ 
partiality  and  justice,  are  equally  synonimous. 

But  the  merits  of  the  objection,  may  be  brought  to  a 
still  smaller  point — and  examined  by  this  test — Is  God 
unjust  in  the  actual  infliction  of  punishment  upon  the 
sinner  ?  This  question,  while  at  the  same  time  that 
it  answers  itself,  will  answer  the  general  question  al¬ 
ready  put. 

The  objection  of  partiality  to  the  doctrine  of  elec¬ 
tion,  is  just  as  groundless  as  the  affirmative  answer  to 
this  question  : — for  if  it  be  right  and  just  that  God 
should  actually  punish  the  sinner,  it  is  equally  right 
and  just,  that  he  should  from  eternity  determine  to  pun¬ 
ish  him.  It  cannot  be  wrong  to  determine  to  do  a 
thing  which  is  right — and  if  so,  what  ground  remains 
for  the  idea  of  partiality  in  such  a  determination  ? 
Furthermore, 

If  it  be  right  to  purpose  what  it  is-right  to  perform, 
it  is  right  to  take  all  the  intermediate  steps,  or  to  do 
all  and  whatever  things  are  necessary  to  be  done,  in 
order  to  establish  a  certain  connexion  between  that 
righteous  purpose,  and  its  complete  performance. — 
Therefore  it  is  right  for  God,  not  only  to  decree  the 
punishment  of  the  sinner,  but  also  to  prepare  the  sin¬ 
ner  to  be  a  proper  subject  of  punishment; — for  this  is 
necessary  to  a  complete  performance  of  his  eternal 
purpose,  and  to  establish  a  certain  connection  between 
the  decree  of  punishment  and  the  event.  Once  more, 

If  it  be  right  in  God  to  effect  the  sinner’s  preparation 
for  punishment,  it  is  right  for  him  to  determine  to  do 
it — it  is  right  for  him  to  decree  the  wickedness  as  well 
as  the  punishment  of  the  sinner.  So  that  there  can  be 
no  partiality  in  God,  in  any  of  these  respects,  for  there 
is  no  injustice  done.  God  is  righteous  in  all  his  deal¬ 
ings,  and  holy  in  all  his  ways. 

But  can  we  be  so  irrational  as  to  say,  or  believe, 
that  God  acts  without  a  design  ? — that  he  administers 
government  at  random,  and  without  any  fixed  purpose, 


ns 


or  end  in  view?  Would  this  be  consistent  with  infi¬ 
nite  wisdom?  Does  not  wisdom  necessarily  imply 
counsel  and  design  ?  If  God,  then,  determines  his  own 
conduct,  that  of  the  sinner  too  is  necessarily  connec¬ 
ted — for  the  creature  is  absolutely  dependent  on  the 
will  of  his  Creator.  “  Of  him,  and  through  him,  and 
to  him  are  all  things.”  Rom.  xi.  36.  But  this  certain 
connexion  between  the  decree  and  the  event,  you  make 
a  ground  of  objection  to  the  doctrine.  You  complain 
that  for  this  reason  all  have  not  an  equal  chance  for 
salvation; — but  that  the  nonelect  by  a 'positive  and 
irrevocable  decree  are  consigned  over  to  inevitable 
hopeless  misery  and  endless  destruction.  This  distinc¬ 
tion  between  them  and  the  elect  is  made  an  argument 
of  partiality.  But  how  does  it  apply  ?  Is  God  under 
any  obligation  excepting  his  own  good  pleasure,  to  save 
either?  Might  he  not  consistently  with  personal  de¬ 
sert,  and  the  strictest  retributive  justice,  proceed  to 
punish  all — the  elect  as  well  as  nonelect?  for  all  have 
sinned  and  come  short  of  his  glory.  Was  God  under 
obligation  to  anv  of  the  human  race  to  give  his  Son  to 
die  for  them  ?  If  so,  it  was  but  an  act  of  justice,  and 
there  is  no  grace  in  the  gospel.  If  he  were  not  under 
any  obligation  of  this  kind,  what  partiality  is  there  in 
his  not  saving  the  whole,  when  all  are  deserving  of 
punishment?  If  he  save  any,  is  it  not  infinite  grace? 
And  is  it  not  his  prerogative  to  determine  who  and  how 
many  shall  be  the  subjects  of  his  mercy,  and  receive 
the  benefit  of  his  pardon  ?  Do  not  earthly  sovereigns, 
in  similar  cases  exercise  this  prerogative  by  an  acknowl¬ 
edged  right,  and  without  any  charge  or  suspicion  of 
partiality,  where  the  publick  good  requires  the  pardon 
of  a  number  of  condemned  criminals  ?  And  is  not  the 
king  of  Heaven  vested  with  this  right  ?  Is  not  his 
wisdom  adequate  to  determine  whom  the  general  good 
of  his  kingdom  requires  him  to  pardon  and  whom  to 
punish  ?  Does  not  infinite  goodness  aim  at  the  greatest 
good;  and  can  infinite  wisdom  fail  of  its  end?  God 
declares  that  he  hath  mercy  on  whom  he  will  have 
mercy — but  does  this  characterize  him  a  partial  being  ? 
“  Hath  not  the  potter  power  over  the  clay,  of  the  same 
lump  to  make  one  vessel  to  honour,  and  another  unto 


179 


dishonour?”  Hath  he  not  a  right  to  do  what  he  will 
with  his  own  ?  Is  thine  eye  evil  because  God  is  good? 
Does  the  mercy  of  God  to  the  redeemed  eclipse  the 
glory  of  his  justice,  by  merging  the  guilt  of  the  dam¬ 
ned  ?  Because  they  are  punished  and  others  are  saved, 
have  they  any  just  grounds  of  dissatisfaction  with  the 
government  of  God  ? — any  reason  to  complain  of  their 
wages,  and  cry  out  of  partiality  and  injustice?  All 
the  difference,  therefore,  both  of  character  and  state  be¬ 
tween  the  elect  and  the  nonelect,  which  ultimately  flows 
from  the  unchangeable  purpose  of  God,  reflects  no  dis¬ 
honour  upon  his  character,  or  affords  any  ground  of  ob¬ 
jection  to  the  rectitude  and  impartiality  of  his  govern¬ 
ment. 

But  this  inevitable  certainty  of  the  reprobate’s  pun¬ 
ishment,  or  the  infallible  connexion  between  that  and 
the  divine  decree,  is,  to  you,  a  grievous  burden  of  com¬ 
plaint.  Why  so?  Is  it  any  more  desirable  than  it  is 
possible,  for  a  divine  decree  to  fail  of  accomplishment  ? 
On  the  other  hand,  would  it  not  be  a  just  matter  of  un¬ 
utterable  regret  to  the  whole  moral  system,  if  the  pur¬ 
poses  of  infinite  goodness  were  to  be  frustrated,  and 
fail  of  execution  ?  This  is  what  none  but  devils  and 
wicked  beings  can  desire  ;  but  would  be  the  greatest 
grief  to  all  holy  intelligences,  and  an  infinite  disap¬ 
pointment  to  the  Most  High.  But  because  creatures 
are  unable  to'disannul  the  decrees  of  God,  or  prevent 
their  accomplishment,  is  this  an  argument  to  prove 
that  God  has  made  no  decrees  ?  If  they  could  do  it,  it 
would  be  an  infallible  argument  to  prove  that  there  is 
no  God.  But  blessed  be  his  name  we  have  the  high¬ 
est  reason  to  rejoice  in  that  full  assurance  of  his  \tford. 
“  My  counsel  shall  stand  and  I  will  do  all  my  pleas¬ 
ure.”  Isaiah  xlvi.  10. 

What  then  is  the  nature  of  this  necessity  of  which 
you  complain?  Is  it  such  as  deprives  the  creature  of 
the  freedom  of  choice,  and  compels  him  against  his 
will  to  be  a  sinner  ?  This  supposition  would  destroy 
itself,  as  it  involves  a  contradiction.  It  has  been 
shown,  that  the  decree  and  agency  of  God  notwith¬ 
standing,  the  whole  blame  of  sin  rests  upon  the  crea¬ 
ture — that  moral  necessity  and  natural  liberty — abso- 


180 


lute  dependence  and  moral  agency,  are  all  perfectly 
harmonious  and  consistent.  And  furthermore,  that 
absolute  foreknowledge  (and  there  can  be  no  fore¬ 
knowledge,  unless  it  be  absolute)  excludes  all  contin¬ 
gency,  and  accompanied  with  bare  permission,  induces 
as  great  a  certainty,  and  imposes  an  equal  necessity 
upon  the  sinner,  as  absolute  foreordination,  accom¬ 
panied  and  executed  by  positive  divine  agency.  By 
the  moral  necessity  of  the  divine  foreknowledge  the 
creature  is  equally  bound  over  to  inevitable ,  hopeless 
misery  and  endless  destruction ,  For,  to  argue  upon 
your  ground,  he  stands  no  chance  for  salvation.  It  is 
infinitely  impossible  he  should  ever  be  saved,  if  God 
foreknew  that  he  would  be  lost — since  the  event  is  in¬ 
separably  connected  with  his  absolute  foreknowledge. 
So  that  if  the  doctrine  of  decrees  should  be  stricken 
out  of  being,  it  would  not  in  the  least  degree  remove 
your  difficulty.  The  same  objection  would  lie  with 
equal  force  against  the  divine  foreknowledge.  And  in 
order  to  make  man  free  and  happy,  or  rather  to  set 
him  as  high  as  his  pride  would  place  him,  should  we 
go  on  at  this  rate,  pruning  and  lopping  off  one  perfec¬ 
tion  after  another  from  the  divine  character,  until  we 
had  formed  a  God  to  our  minds, — the  true  God  would 
be  renounced — no  proper  object  of  religious  worship 
remain — the  throne  of  Jehovah  would  be  vacant,  and 
man’s  independence  absolute  and  complete. 

But  to  return — If  the  sinner,  therefore,  acts  his  free 
choice,  he  cannot  complain  of  compulsion,  either  upon 
the  hypothesis  of  decrees,  or  forknowledge.  If  the 
blame  of  sin  be  wholly  his  own,  and  in  no  part,  God’s 
— I10V  can  there  be  partiality  where  there  is  no  injus¬ 
tice  ?  What  right  has  he  to  complain  of  the  holy  gov¬ 
ernment  of  God,  and  say,  “  I  am  doomed  to  be  a  sin¬ 
ner — and  am  consigned  over  to  inevitable  hopeless  mis¬ 
ery ,  and  endless  destruction ,  while  others  no  better  by 
nature  than  I,  God  hath  elected  to  eternal  life — given 
his  Son  to  die  for  their  salvation,  made  them  the  sub¬ 
jects  of  his  pardoning  mercy,  and  the  heirs  of  his  eter¬ 
nal  kingdom.”  It  is  certain  that  he  will  have  no 
ground  for  this  complaint  under  the  actual  suffering  of 
punishment  in  the  world  to  come  ;  and  he  has,  if  pos- 


181 


sible,  still  less,  while  under  the  calls  of  mercy,  and  the 
offers  of  salvation  in  the  present  life.  Should  a  man 
in  the  exercise  of  his  reason,  and  with  his  eyes  open, 
make  so  foolish  and  unnatural  a  choice,  as  that  of  run¬ 
ning  into  the  fire,  or  leaping  off  a  tremendous  preci¬ 
pice  ;  and  persist  in  the  mad  attempt,  notwithstanding 
all  the  prayers  and  entreaties  of  his  friends — he  dies 
the  death  of  a  fool,  and  his  blood  must  be  upon  his 
own  head. 

But  does  impartiality  require  that  God  should  make 
all  his  creatures  holy  and  happy,  if  he  does  any  of 
them?  We  know  that  the  good  things  of  time  are  une¬ 
qually  distributed.  The  safest  way  then,  of  determin¬ 
ing  the  question,  is  by  actual  and  known  events. — 
These  answer  in  the  negative — the  objection  is  built 
upon  the  affirmative.  So  that  unless  universal  salva¬ 
tion  be  embraced — the  objection  must  lie  in  full  force 
against  the  objector,  upon  your  own  plan  ;  and  wheth¬ 
er  mankind  be  all  saved,  or  all  damned,  the  case  would 
be  the  same,  as  long  as  either  the  angels  exist  in  hap¬ 
piness,  or  the  devils  in  misery  to  disprove  the  impar¬ 
tiality  of  the  divine  government. 

This  subject,  opens  so  large  a  field,  that  the  answer 
to  the  present  objection,  must  be  continued,  and  will 
be  concluded  in  my  next  letter. 

Yours,  &c. 

Aristarchus. 


16 


/ 


LETTER  XV. 


Dear  Sir, 

Your  objection,  stated  and  partly  considered  in  my 
last  letter  was,  that, 

“  The  doctrine  of  election  is  inconsistent  with  the 
divine  impartiality — represents  God  as  a  respecter  of 
persons — leaves  not  mankind  an  equal  chance  for  ob¬ 
taining  salvation,  &c.” 

It  will  be  unnecessary  to  retrace  the  ground  we  have 
gone  over,  but  it  may  be  of  some  importance  to  de¬ 
termine  precisely  what  we  are  to  understand  by  par¬ 
tiality  and  respect  of  persons — for  unless  we  are  agreed 
in  the  sense  of  the  wrnrd,  the  dispute  would  be  about 
different  things,  and  both  might  be  true  or  both  false. 

If  by  partiality  you  mean  simply  this,  that  God  does 
actually  save  a  certain  definite  number  of  mankind, 
through  the  redemption  of  Christ,  and  punishes  and 
destroys  all  the  rest  according  to  his  own  eternal  de¬ 
cree  ;  the  thing  intended  is  granted  for  truth,  and  the 
dispute  remains  only  about  the  application  of  terms. 

But  this  doctrine  does  not  imply  partiality,  or  re¬ 
spect  of  persons,  according  to  the  common  acceptation 
of  those  words,  or  the  ideas  they  are  ever  used  to  ex¬ 
press  in  the  holy  Scriptures. 

Let  us  then  by  application  to  these  standards,  en¬ 
deavor  to  obtain  determinate  ideas,  that  we  may  not 
be  deceived  by  sounds,  or  led  astray  from  the  real  ob¬ 
ject,  in  pursuit  of  a  phantom. 

This  general  definition  then,  of  partiality,  and  re¬ 
spect  of  persons,  I  will  venture  to  say  is  agreeable  to 
scripture  and  common  usage,  and  applies  to  all  cases 
where  the  words  may  be  used  with  propriety — viz. 

To  act  with  a  view  to  the  interest  of  a  part ,  in  oppo¬ 
sition  to  that  of  the  whole — or 

Witholding  that  benefit  from  one,  which  you  bestow 
upon  another ,  either  where  the  former  only  has  a  right, 


183 


or  where  both  are  equally  and  well  entitled  to  the  same 
benefit ,  and  common  justice  and  the  publick  good  re¬ 
quire  that  both  should  receive . 

This  is  partiality ,  or  having  respect  to  persons,  be¬ 
cause  private  interest,  in  opposition  to  the  publick 
good  is  the  ultimate  end — and  motives  of  party  inter¬ 
est,  or  personal  respect,  alone,  influence  the  mind  of 
the  agent.  It  is  “  having  men’s  persons  in  admiration 
because  of  advantage.”  Jude  16. 

This  applies  to  the  case  of  a  judge,  who  through  the 
influence  of  bribery,  or  party  prejudice,  or  sinister 
views  of  any  kind,  renders  judgment  in  favour  of  a  dis¬ 
honest  claim — condemns  the  innocent  or  acquits  the 
guilty — or  sustains  the  action  of  one  suitor,  and  rejects 
that  of  another,  where  both  had  the  same  merits,  and 
both  claimed  by  right.  Such  a  judge  we  say  is  par¬ 
tial ,  and  acts  with  respect  of  persons  ; — because  the 
publick  good  requires  an  equal  distribution  of  justice. 

This  too  is  according  to  the  sense  of  Scripture. — 
The  parable  of  the  unjust  steward  affords  an  example 
in  point.  He  acted  from  motives  of  personal  favour — 
with  sinister  views,  and  to  a  selfish  end.  The  reproof 
of  the  apostle  James,  gives  us  also,  the  same  criteria 
of  distinction.  “My  brethren  have'not  the  faith  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Lord  of  glory,  with  respect 
of  persons.  For  if  there  come  into  your  assembly,  a 
man  with  a  gold  ring,  in  goodly  apparel — -and  there 
come  in  also  a  poor  man,  with  vile  raiment.  And  ye 
have  respect  to  him- that  weareth  the  gay  clothing,  and 
say  unto  him,  set  thou  here  in  a  good  place,  and  say 
unto  the  poor  man,  stand  thou  there,  or  set  here  under 
my  footstool  ;  are  ye  not  partial  in  yourselves,  and 
become  judges  of  evil  thoughts  James  ii.  ] — 4. 

The  impartiality  of  the  divine  conduct,  as  a  contrast 
to  this,  is  asserted  and  explained  in  many  parts  of  the 
Bible.  I  shall  content  myself  with  a  recital  of  one  of 
them,  and  a  topical  reference  only  to  a  few  others. 
In  the  introduction  of  Peter’s  sermon  to  Cornelius, 
which  respects  the  enlargement  of  Christ’s  church,  by 
the  accession  of  the  Gentiles — we  read,  “  Of  a  truth,  I 
perceive  that  God  is  no  respecter  of  persons,  but  in  ev¬ 
ery  nation,  he  that  feareth  him  and  worketh  righteous- 


184 


i 


ness  is  accepted  with  him.”  Acts  x.  34,  35. — Parallel 
passages  are  found  in  Deut.  x.  17. — 2  Ckron.  xix.  7. — 
Job  xxxiv.  19. — Psalms  lxxxii.  1. — Ecclesiastes  v.  8. — 
Rom.  ii.  6 — 12.—  Gal.  ii.  6. — j Eph.  vi.  9. — Col.  iii.  25. 
— 1  Peter  i.  17. — These  passages  are  not  adduced  lo 
prove  the  divine  impartiality,  a  point  in  which  all  are 
professedly  agreed  ; — but  only  as  illustrations  of  the 
proposed  definition,  and  to  operate  as  further  aids  in 
proof  of  the  point  which  you  deny,  that  the  doctrine 
of  election  is  consistent  with  the  divine  impartiality. 

We  are  now,  I  think  sufficiently  guarded  against 
misapprehension,  and  misapplication  of  terms  ;  and  we 
may  proceed  without  fear  of  stumbling  blocks  in  our 
way. 

And  let  me  seriously  ask,  does  the  doctrine  of  elec¬ 
tion  oppugn  the  divine  impartiality,  according  to  the 
general  definition  given,  and  explained  and  supported, 
both  by  the  authority  of  Scripture,  and  of  common 
usage  ?  Does  it,  at  all,  imply,  that  the  Most  High  acts 
with  a  view  to  the  interests  of  apart  of  his  moral 
kingdom,  in  opposition  to  the  general  interests  of  the 
whole  ?  Unless  it  necessarily  involves  this,  it  implies 
no  partiality.  But  how  can  this  be  made  to  appear  ? 
Does  a  civil  magistrate  act  inconsistently  with  his  offi¬ 
cial  character — a  part  opposed  to  rectitude  and  justice, 
in  strictly  executing  the  laws  upon  convicted  offend¬ 
ers  ?  Does  he  thence  incur  the  heavy  charge  of  partial¬ 
ity  and  injustice  ?  Does  he  act  for  the  interest  of  a 
part,  in  opposition  to  that  of  the  whole  ?  Is  he  for  such 
a  line  of  conduct,  to  be  condemned  for  the  abuse  of 
authority — a  breach  of  his  publick  trust  ?  No.  He 
deserves  well  of  his  country,  as  an  impartial  man,  a 
faithful,  upright  magistrate  ; — his  conduct  is  patriotic, 
benevolent  and  praise  worthy.  A  righteous  king  who 
would  deserve  and  exhibit  the  dignified  character  of  a 
father  to  his  people,  by  making  his  subjects  as  happy 
as  possible  under  his  government  ;  must  support  his 
authority  with  firmness,  and  impartially  execute  the 
laws,  in  the  punishment  of  offenders.  Inflexible  jus¬ 
tice  is  essentially  connected  with  goodness.  A  being 
who  is  not  just  cannot  be  good — for  favour  to  the  guil¬ 
ty  is  cruelty  to  the  innocent.  In  fine,  the  publick  good 


185 


is  promoted  no  further,  and  in  no  higher  degree,  than 
as  justice  is  administered. 

As,  therefore,  the  general  good  of  God’s  kingdom 
requires  that  he  manifest  his  righteousness  and  hatred 
of  iniquity,  by  suitable  displays  of  his  punitive  justice 
upon  his  rebellious  subjects,  it  also  requires  that  he 
provide  the  ways  and  means  for  making  these  displays  : 
or  that  he  prepare  fit  subjects  for  the  exercise  of  his 
justice.  How  then  can  he  act  with  a  view  to  the  in¬ 
terests  of  a  part,  in  opposition  to  that  of  the  whole,  in 
previously  determining  to  do  all  that  which  the  publick 
good  requires  ? — in  decreeing,  from  eternity,  and  ef¬ 
fecting  in  time,  all  those  means  and  measures,  and 
those  only,  which  are  directed,  and  designed  to  pro¬ 
mote  the  general  good,  and  which  are  absolutely  ne¬ 
cessary  to  the  accomplishment  of  that  important  end  ? 
But  this  is  all  that  the  doctrine  of  election  can  be  made 
to  imply.  So  that  the  objection  in  reality  is  opposed 
to  God’s  decreeing  and  effecting,  the  general  good  and 
happiness  of  moral  beings. 

As  the  general  good  is  promoted  in  exact  proportion 
to  the  amplitude  and  clearness  of  these  displays  of  pu¬ 
nitive  justice — the  greatest  possible  general  good  re¬ 
quires  the  clearest  and  fullest,  possible  displays  of  the 
divine  justice.  And  are  not  these  displays  made  in  the 
divine  government?  Could  they  be  more  clear  and 
full  upon  any  other  plan  ?  Let  us  inquire. 

The  destruction  of  all  moral  beings,  is  not  an  admis¬ 
sible  supposition.  But  supposing  that  all  mankind 
were  saved,  and  none  perished,  would  the  displays  of 
justice  be  as  clear  and  full  ?  Evidently  they  would 
not.  The  punishment  of  the  devils,  it  is  true,  would 
be  in  itself,  a  display  of  justice — but  this  display  would 
not  be  so  clear  and  full,  as  it  might  be,  while  mankind, 
who  were  equally  deserving  of  punishment  (I  do  not 
say,  deserving  of  equal  punishment)  are  all  pardoned 
and  made  happy.  As  the  devils  are  a  distinct  order  of 
beings,- — commenced  existence  under  different  circum¬ 
stances,  and  incurred  greater  and  more  aggravated 
guilt  by  their  apostacy  than  man — their  punishment 
would  not  afford  conclusive  evidence  of  God’s  dis¬ 
pleasure  against  the  sins  and  rebellion  of  mankind  ; — 


*16 


186 


no  display  of  divine  justice  towards  them; — no  proof 
by  sensible  fruits  in  government  of  the  same  moral 
character  of  God,  as  an  infinite  hater  of  tlieir  iniquity, 
which  is  expressed  in  his  written  law.  It  would  give 
intelligent  beings  occasion  to  think,  that  man  was  saved 
because  not  so  guilty  as  the  devils — or  because  he  was 
not  so  deserving  of  that  punishment  which  God  had 
threatened  him — or  not  deserving  of  any  ; — by  which 
man  would  have  something  whereof  to  boast,  in  either 
case,  alike  derogatory  to  the  honour,  truth  and  justice 
of  the  divine  character.  It  would,  I  think,  afford  some 
ground  to  suspect  the  divine  impartiality,  and  so  far 
defeat  the  intent  of  justice,  the  promotion  of  the  gen¬ 
eral  good. 

If  a  king  should  punish  all  his  subjects  who  lived  in 
a  certain  particular  province,  that  Were  guilty  of  high 
treason — and  never  punish,  or  call  to  account,  any  in 
another  province,  who  were  guilty  of  the  same  crime  ; 
for  example,  if  the  king  of  England  should  execute  the 
laws  against  high  treason,  only  upon  his  Irish  and 
never  upon  his  British  subjects,  however  guilty  they 
might  be  in  the  eye  of  the  law  ;  would  not  his  subjects 
have  just  cause  to  complain  of  his  partiality,  and  say 
that  he  was  actuated  bv  sinister  views,  and  favoured 
the  interests  of  a  part,  in  opposition  to  the  equal  in¬ 
terests  of  the  whole  kingdom  ?  Would  such  a  plan  of 
government  be  calculated  to  promote  the  greatest  pos¬ 
sible,  general  good  ? 

Therefore,  I  argue,  and  I  think  on  good  ground, 
that  the  clearest  and  fullest  display  of  divine  justice, 
does  not  consist  with  the  salvation  of  the  whole  hu¬ 
man  race.  And  therefore  the  greatest  possible  gener¬ 
al  good,  equally  requires  the  punishment  of  a  part,  as  it 
does  the  salvation  of  the  other.  And  now  let  me  again 
ask,  does  God  seek  to  promote  the  interest  of  a  part, 
in  opposition  to  that  of  the  whole  in  decreeing  the 
greatest  possible  general  good  of  his  moral  kingdom  ? 
Nothing  short  of  this  is  implied  in  the  doctrine  of  elec¬ 
tion.  So  that  the  objection  is  found  to  lie  against  the 
greatest  ‘possible  general  good. 

It  will  be  proper  in  this  place  to  introduce  an  im¬ 
portant  distinction,  which  is  necessary  to  be  made, 


187 


and  kept  clearly  in  view,  in  order  to  a  right  under¬ 
standing  of  this  subject.  It  arises  in  answer  to  this 
•  query,  viz.  If  the  justice  of  God  require  the  punish¬ 
ment  of  the  guilty;  how  can  justice  be  satisfied  with 
the  punishment  of  only  a  part  of  the  guilty  ?  Or,  how 
is  the  general  good  better  promoted,  by  the  salvation 
of  those  particular  individuals,  who  compose  the  num¬ 
ber  of  the  elect,  than  it  would  be  by  the  salvation  of 
others,  since  there  is  no  personal  desert  of  salvation  in 
either  ?  To  answer  these  questions,  the  distinction 
between  general  and  distributive  justice  is  necessary 
to  be  brought  into  view.  The  general  good  requires 
the  salvation  of  a  certain  part  of  the  human  race. — 
Who  these  are,  or  why  these  in  preference  to  others 
is  known  only  to  God.  Yet  he  does  not  act  without 
reasons,  however  unknown  they  are  to  us.  Infinite 
wisdom  ever  acts  from  the  highest  and  best  reasons. 
God  does  not  act  arbitrarily  in  electing.  The  general 
good  is  better  promoted  by  the  salvation  of  the  elect, 
than  it  would  be  by  the  salvation  of  any  others.  And 
we  may  set  it  down,  as  a  certain  fruit  of  infinite  good¬ 
ness,  that  God  will  make  as  many  of  his  rational  crea¬ 
tures  happy,  as  can  consist  with  the  greatest  general 
good — perhaps  the  number  will  be  by  far  the  greater 
part  of  the  human  race — so  that  it  will  appear  in  the 
grand  consummation  at  the  last  day,  that  there  are  but 
few  state  criminals  for  execution,  in  proportion  to  the 
number  of  the  redeemed  and  saved — and  perhaps  too, 
all  the  reasons  of  the  divine  counsel  and  conduct  will 
be  unfolded,  in  the  exhibitions  of  eternity.  But  to  re¬ 
turn.  The  general  good  requiring  the  salvation  of  a 
part  of  the  human  race — it  is  therefore  general  justice 
— or  what  is  due  to  the  general  good,  or  the  fruit  of  a 
supreme  regard  to  that  end,  that  they  should  be  ex¬ 
empted  from  personal  punishment.  General  justice 
has  both  an  ultimate  and  an  immediate  respect  to  the 
general  good  : — distributive  justice  has  also  an  ulti¬ 
mate  respect  to  that  end,  but  an  immediate  respect  on¬ 
ly  to  the  personal  moral  character  of  the  creature. — 
General  justice  admits  of  mercy,  yea  requires  it  ; — dis¬ 
tributive  justice  knows  no  mercy,  but  treats  every  sub¬ 
ject  according  to  his  personal  moral  character — saying, 


V 


188 

% 

“  the  soul  that  sinneth  it  shall  die.  Cursed  is  every 
one  that  continueth  not  in  all  things  written  in  the 
book  of  the  law  to  do  them.”  This  is  the  awful  sanc¬ 
tion  of  the  moral  law.  In  the  salvation  of  the  elect, 
general  and  distributive  justice,  independent  of  the 
atonement,  would  forever  clash  and  stand  mutually 
opposed.  In  the  destruction  of  the  nonelect,  they  con¬ 
spire  and  are  jointly  exercised. 

Here  the  wisdom  and  glory  of  the  gospel  scheme  of 
mercy  appear,  in  perfectly  harmonizing  the  contending 
claims  of  general  and  distributive  justice,  by  removing 
all  the  obstacles  that  were  cast  by  the  latter  in  the 
way  of  mercy,  so  that  “mercy  and  truth  are  met  to¬ 
gether,  righteousness  and  peace  have,  kissed  each  oth¬ 
er.”  Psalms  lxxxv.  10. — or,  justice  and  grace  are  har¬ 
monized,  Since  Christ  has  suffered  the  just  for  the 
unjust — tasted  death  for  every  man,  and  become  a  pro¬ 
pitiation  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world — God  can 
have  mercy  on  whom  he  will  have  mercy,  and  can  be 
just,  and  the  justifier  of  him  who  believeth  in  Jesus.” 
Rom.  iii.  26.  The  righteousness  of  God  is  declared 
and  displayed  in  the  atonement  of  Christ — his  infinite 
love  of  holiness  and  hatred  of  sin.  So  that  he  acts  as 
a  just  God,  in  freely  pardoning  sin  for  Christ’s  sake, 
and  receiving  into  his  divine  favour  and  friendship, 
every  true  believer  ;  and  working  faith  in  every  soul 
whom  he  hath  ordained  to  eternal  life.  The  distribu¬ 
tive  justice  of  God  as  it  respects  the  redeemed,  is  fully 
satisfied  and  displayed  in  the  sufferings  of  Christ. — 
“  Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law, 
being  made  a  curse  for  us.”  Gal.  iii.  13.  In  allusion 
to  this,  the  apostle  John  says,  “If  we  confess  our  sins 
he  is  faithful  and  just  to  forgive  us  our  sins,  and  to 
cleanse  us  from  all  unrighteousness.”  1  John  i.  9.  So 
that  God  maintains  and  displays  the  same  glorious 
character  of  impartiality  and  justice  in  all  his  ways  and 
works — in  the  salvation  of  his  chosen,  as  in  the  de¬ 
struction  of  reprobates.  In  both  he  is  equally  just, 
and  equally  good  : — both  are  the  accomplishment  of 
his  eternal  purpose,  and  flow  from  the  same  unchange¬ 
able  perfections  of  his  nature.  Thus  for  example,  both 
general  and  distributive  justice  required  the  punish- 


189 


ment  of  Judas  the  traitor — and  God  is  glorified,  and  the 
system  made  happier  by  his  destruction.  Again — 
General  justice  required  the  salvation  of  Paul  the  per¬ 
secutor — therefore  he  was  elected  from  eternity  : — dis¬ 
tributive  jhstice  called  for  his  eternal  destruction — yet, 
through  the  redemption  of  Christ,  Paul  the  sinner  is 
saved — the  demands  of  justice  satisfied,  and  divine 
grace  gloriously  displayed. 

This  distinction  being  made,  and  as  I  think,  suffi¬ 
ciently  explained,  I  proceed  now  as  was  intended  in  the 

3d  place,  to  observe,  that  if  the  greatest  possible  gen¬ 
eral  good,  require  the  clearest  and  fullest  displays  of 
divine  justice  ;  and  these  displays  cannot  be  made,  but 
by  the  punishment  of  a  part  of  the  human  race — then 
the  duration  of  this  good,  requires  an  eqnal  duration 
of  these  displays  :  a^l  the  atonement  of  Christ,  though 
in  itself  an  adequate  expression  of  the  divine  displeas¬ 
ure,  yet  is  not  a  display  of  justice  sufficiently  clear, 
sensible  and  impressive,  to  the  minds  of  intelligent 
creatures,  unless  accompanied  with  the  punishment  of 
impenitent  sinners,  as  standing  visible  monuments  of 
divine  justice,  in  a  continued  and  eternal  state  of  suf¬ 
ferings.  For,  the  impressions  of  faith  must  be  more 
feeble  and  languid  than  those  of  sight.  We  well  know 
that  we  more  sensibly  realize,  and  are  more  deeply  af¬ 
fected  with  what  we  see,  than  with  what  we  only  hear, 
and  merely  believe,  even  though  it  be  without  the  least 
doubt.  Had  welived  at  the  time,  and  been  eye  witnesses 
of  Christ,  hanging,  bleeding,  groaning  and  dying  upon 
the  cross — had  known  his  true  character,  and  under¬ 
stood  the  language  of  sufferings — the  awful  glory  of  di¬ 
vine  justice  in  the  sufferings  and  death  of  the  Son  of  God, 
might  have  had  the  deepest  impressions,  perhaps,  that 
we  are  capable  of  receiving  in  the  present  state.  Yet 
as  soon  as  the  sensible  medium  of  display  were  remo¬ 
ved,  and  the  impression  continued,  but  by  the  power  of 
memory,  and  mental  reflection,  it  would  constantly 
languish  and  decline — the  objects  become  Jess  and  less 
vivid,  and  gradually  affect  us  less  and  less  in  propor¬ 
tion  to  the  distance  of  time  from  the  scene  of  recol¬ 
lection. 

This  was  the  reason  of  the  institution  of  the  Sacra- 


190 


mental  Supper,  in  commemoration  of  the  death  of 
Christ.  It  was  designed  to  revive  and  strengthen  the 
impression  of  Christ  crucified,  by  bringing  the  object 
represented  by  symbols,  as  nearly  as  possible  into  sen¬ 
sible  view.  And  were  we  to  dwell  forever  with  Christ 
in  his  glorified  state,  and  have  the  same  nearness  of 
access  to  him,  which  Thomas  had,  after  his  resurrec¬ 
tion — yet,  the  display  of  divine  justice  by  Christ  upon 
the  cross,  would  still  be  but  an  object  of  faith— it  would 
need  a  sensible  monument  to  enforce  the  impression 
in  the  deepest  and  most  realizing  manner.  The  divine 
character  of  the  Redeemer,  though  an  adequate  medium 
of  expressing  the  divine  justice,  yet  that  expression 
must  be  displayed  by  gradual  and  successive  discove¬ 
ries  to  the  finite  views  and  limited  capacities  of  crea¬ 
tures.  And  this  can  be  done  in  rif  other  way,  than  by 
the  punishment  of  the  impenitent.  This  is  declared 
by  the  apostle  as  one  important  end  to  be  answered  by 
the  destruction  of  the  wicked — “What  if  God  willing 
to  shew  his  wrath  and  make  his  power  known,  endured 
with  much  long  suffering,  the  vessels  of  wrath  fitted 
to  destruction,  and  that  he  might  make  known  the  rich¬ 
es  of  his  glory ,  on  the  vessels  of  mercy,  which  he  had 
afore  prepared  unto  glory.”  Rom.  ix.  22,  23.  When 
the  redeemed  in  glory  look  down  to  the  dark  regions 
of  despair,  and  view  the  wretched  millions  of  their 
fellow  men,  and  fellow  sinners,  weltering  in  the  flames 
of  divine  wrath — reaping  the  wages  of  sin,  in  a  state 
of  continual,  increasing,  intolerable,  and  eternal  mise¬ 
ry,  they  will  have  a  deep  and  realizing  sense  of  the  evil 
of  sin,  and  the  punishment  it  deserves.  “And  they 
shall  go  forth  and  look  upon  the  carcases  of  the  men 
that  have  transgressed  against  me — for  their  worm 
shall  not  die,  neither  shall  their  fire  be  quenched,  and 
they  shall  be  an  abhorring  unto  all  flesh.”  Isaiah  Ixvi. 
24.  By  the  misery  of  the  damned,  they  will  the  more 
sensibly  feel  their  own  deserts,  and  the  greatness  of 
their  salvation.  By  viewing  the  wrath  from  which 
they  are  delivered,  through  distinguishing,  sovereign, 
unmerited  mercy,  they  will  the  more  feelingly  realize 
the  rich  grace  of  God — the  value  of  Christ’s  atonement, 
and  the  infinite  dignity  of  his  person  and  character. 


X 


191 


As  the  damned  sink  in  misery,  they  will  rise  in  happi¬ 
ness — the  glory  of  Christ  will  be  exalted,  and  rise  high¬ 
er  and  higher  to  eternity.  As  the  smoke  of  their 
torment  arises,  they  will  swell  their  songs  of  joy  and 
triumph,  and  strike  eternal  anthems  of  praise  upon 
their  golden  harps  to  redeeming  love  and  power  ;  say¬ 
ing  “Worthy  is  the  Lamb  that  was  slain,  and  hath  re¬ 
deemed  us  unto  God  with  his  blood — Not  unto  us  — not 
unto  us  O  Lord,  but  unto  thy  name  give  glory  for  thy 
mercy,  and  thy  truth’s  sake.” 

In  the  beginning  of  the  19th  Chapter  of  St.  John’s 
Revelation,  we  have  the  most  lively  and  affecting  rep¬ 
resentation  of  the  saints  in  heaven  rejoicing  for  the 
visible  displays  of  God’s  justice  in  the  eternal  punish¬ 
ment  of  his  enemies. — “And  after  these  things,  I 
heard  a  great  voice  of  much  people  in  heaven,  saying, 
Alleluia — Salvation  and  glory  and  honour  unto  the 
Lord  our  God,  for  true  and  righteous  are  his  judgments 
— for  he  hath  judged  the  great  whore,  which  did  cor¬ 
rupt  the  earth  with  her  fornications,  and  hath  avenged 
the  blood  of  his  servents  at  her  hands.  And  again 
they  said  Alleluia — and  her  smoke  arose  up  forever 
and  ever.”  Here  is  the  grand  consummation  of  all 
God’s  works — the  complete  and  final  accomplishment 
of  all  his  eternal  purposes.  They  all  issue  and  termi¬ 
nate  in  one  infinitely  great  and  glorious  end — the 
greatest  possible  general  good  and  happiness  of  his 
moral  kingdom,  effected  by  the  fullest  and  clearest  dis¬ 
plays  of  his  justice  :  and  this  good  the  greatest  in  de¬ 
gree,  rendered  eternal  in  its  duration,  by  the  equal  con¬ 
tinuance  and  increasing  clearness  of  those  displays. 
This  is  the  proper  fruit,  the  necessary  consequence, 
and  ultimate  end  of  the  doctrine  of  Election : — a  doc¬ 
trine  which  reflects  the  highest  glory  upon  the  divine 
character,  and  exhibits  every  perfection  of  the  God¬ 
head,  in  the  most  amiable,  attractive  and  adorable  point 
of  view. 

What  blindness,  arrogance  and  presumption — what 
narrowness  of  spirit,  pride  and  selfishness  does  it  dis¬ 
cover  in  us  imperfect  and  short  sighted  worms  of  the 
dust  to  censure  the  conduct  of  infinite  wfisdom, — to 
murmur  and  complain — to  change  God  foolishly,  and 


192 


say  that  his  ways  are  not  equal?  How  perfectly 
groundless  is  the  charge  of  his  partiality  !  The  per¬ 
sonal  moral  character  of  his  creatures,  and  not  his  de¬ 
decrees,  is  the  ground  of  his  retributions.  In  the 
execution  of  his  eternal  purposes,  he  will  judge  and 
reward  every  man  according  to  his  works,  with  an  ulti¬ 
mate  aim  to  his  own  glory,  in  the  general  happiness  of 
his  intelligent  system.  What  possibility  does  this  ad¬ 
mit  of  his  respecting  persons  ?  of  his  requring  much 
where  little  was  given  or  the  reverse  ?  Was  there 
ever  a  man  of  any  nation  or  age,  who  feared  him  and 
wrought  righteousness,  that  was  not  accepted  with 
him  ?  We  indeed  form  our  own  characters,  and  God 
forms  them  too-— we  are  not  independent.  The  Scrip¬ 
tures  truly  teach  that  the  sinner’s  destruction  proceeds 
from  himself,  as  the  natural  and  necessary  fruit  of  his 
own  folly — yet  this  does  not  in  the  least  disprove  the 
divine  purpose  or  agency,  or  clash  with  those  other 
declarations  of  his  word,  that  God  hath  a  right  to  pre¬ 
pare  his  creatures  for  glory  or  for  destruction,  as  the 
potter  hath  power  over  the  clay,  of  the  same  lump,  to 
make  one  vessel  unto  honour,  and  another  unto  dis¬ 
honour.  How  idle  then  is  the  appeal  to  those  passa¬ 
ges  of  Scripture,  “  O  Israel  thou  hast  destroyed  thy¬ 
self — thou  hast  fallen  by  thine  iniquity.”  A  sacred 
important  truth.  What  enlightened  mind  does  not 
believe,  that  the  sinner  has  no  one  to  blame  but  him¬ 
self — that  his  sins  are  the  procuring  cause  of  his  ruin 
— his  destruction  the  fruit  of  his  own  perverseness  and 
folly  ?  But  what  is  all  this  to  the  purpose  ?  They 
have  not  the  least  application  in  support  of  the  objec¬ 
tion,  but  disprove  the  very  argument,  they  were  de¬ 
signed  to  enforce. — That  you  may  heartily  subscribe 
to  this  glorious  doctrine  of  the  gospel,  and  rejoice  for¬ 
ever  in  the  rich  blessings  of  God’s  eternal  electing 
love,  is  the  earnest  prayer  of  your  sincere  friend  and 
well  wisher, 


Aristarchus. 


LETTER  XVI. 


Dear  Sir, 

It  appears  that  your  objections  to  the  doctrine  of 
divine  election,  are  not  yet  exhausted.  The  one  fol¬ 
lowing  strikes  me  as  somewhat  new  in  its  structure — 
but  tho’  supported  by  a  shew  of  argument,  its  sophistry 
may  be  easily  exposed.  We  will  give  it  a  fair  and 
candid  examination.— -You  say, 

The  doctrine  of  election  involves  this  inconsistency 
— that  the  elect  are  chosen  of  God  from  eternity,  and 
yet  they  are  not  actually  beloved  of  him,  until  their 
actual  regeneration,  or  spiritual  birth.  If  otherwise, 
then  they  are  the  objects  of  the  divine  complacence, 
while  perfectly  destitute  of  holiness,  and  at  total  en¬ 
mity  with  God.  But  the  apostle  tells  the  Ephesian 
believers,  that  they  “  were  by  nature  children  of  wrath 
even  as  others  ” — and  how  can  they  be  children  of 
God’s  wrath,  and  of  his  love,  at  the  same  time?  The 
same  apostle  says  in  his  epistle  to  the  Romans,  “There 
is  therefore,  now,  no  condemnation  to  them  that  are  in 
Christ  Jesus,  who  walk  not  after  the  flesh,  but  after  the 
Spirit” — Romans ,  viii.  1.  Here  the  apostle  does  not 
describe  them  by  their  eternal  election,  but  by  their 
actual  engrafting  into  Christ.  Before  they  were  actu¬ 
ally  in  Christ,  or  while  in  an  impenitent  state,  they 
were,  according  to  the  apostle  under  condemnation — 
but  how  does  that  consist  with  their  being  eternally 
chosen  ?  Are  they  rejected  when  impenitent,  and  then 
reelected,  when  they  repent  ?  Before  they  were  in 
Christ  they  walked  aftef  the  flesh  only,  equally  with 
the  reprobate  world,  and  how  then  could  they  be  the 
objects  of  the  divine  love  and  favour,  any  more  than 
others  ?  If  this  be  a  criterion  of  the  divine  impartial¬ 
ity,  that  “  in  every  nation,  he  that  feareth  him,  and 
worketh  righteousness  is  accepted  with  him  ” — then, 
must  we  not  conclude,  that  in  every  nation  he  that  de- 

17 


194 


spises  him,  and  works  wickedness  is  rejected  by  him  1 
Is  not  this  equally  necessary  to  the  divine  impartiality  1 

Would  it  not  be  more  consistent  to  consider  the 
doctrine  of  election  in  this  point  of  view — that,  God 
from  eternity  elected  those  whom  he  will  finally  save, 
because  he  foresaw  that  they  would  repent  and  believe. 
So  that,  though  they  were  in  this  manner,  elected  from 
eternity,  yet  their  election  continues  in  embryo,  or 
waiting  in  abeyance,  as  inchoate  as  their  faith,  and  is 
not  actually  made,  until  they  actually  believe. 

This  objection,  rny  friend,  arises  from  a  narrow  and 
partial  view  of  things — from  very  low  and  unworthy 
apprehensions  of  God,  and  a  total  inattention  to  the 
true  nature  of  the  gospel  seheme  of  mercy. — The  in¬ 
consistencies  objected  to  are  merely  imaginary — but 
on  the  part  of  the  objection,  they  are  real  and  irremo¬ 
vable.  The  doctrine  of  election,  according  to  your 
view  of  it,  is  neither  consistent  with  Scripture,  with 
reason,  nor  with  itself.  An  embryotic  choice  in  the 
divine  mind — inchoate  as  the  faith  of  the  elect — but 
made  eternal  ages  before  their  existence; — a  divine 
determination  from  eternity  to  elect  certain  of  man¬ 
kind  for  their  foreseen  faith  ;  and  yet  no  actual  elec¬ 
tion  made,  until  they  actually  believe — are  words, 
which  to  my  mind,  convey  no  consistent,  or  even  in¬ 
telligible  idea  of  the  doctrine  of  election. 

It  bears  the  same  complexion,  and  I  must  think, 
belongs  to  the  same  scheme  with  the  doctrine  of  a  self 
determining  power  in  the  human  will.  They  both 
agree  with  each  other- -but  with  reason  and  common 
sense,  they  are  equally  at  war. 

But  as  it  appears  in  the  dress  of  serious  and  solemn 
argument,  I  will  not  condemn  it  without  a  fair  and  for¬ 
mal  examination. 

You  proposed  an  amendment  to  the  Scriptural  doc¬ 
trine  of  election — Its  consistency  is  now  the  object  of 
inquiry.  Let  us  analyze  it,  and  distinctly  view  its  com¬ 
ponent  parts.  God  eternally  elected  his  redeemed,  be¬ 
cause  he  eternally  foresaw  that  they  would  repent  and 
believe.  But  we  will  proceed  a  step  further  and  ask, — 
how  did  God  foreknow  that  any  of  mankind  would 
believe  in  Christ  ?  What  cause  established  the  certain- 


195 


ty  of  that  event — so  that  it  became  an  object  of  God’s 
absolute  foreknowledge,  and  the  ground  and  reason  of 
his  eternal  determination  to  save  them  ? 

If  it  be  replied  that  the  divine  purpose  was  condi¬ 
tional  and  not  absolute — that  is,  God  from  eternity 
determined  to  save  them,  if  they  repented  and  believ¬ 
ed,  this  would  but  plunge  us  the  deeper  in  difficulty. 
It  would  be  an  utter  relinquishment  of  the  divine  abso¬ 
lute  foreknowledge; — for  this  effectually  precludes  all 
idea,  or  possibility  of  contingency,  There  can  be  no 
certain  foreknowledge,  but  what  is  absolute.  A  con¬ 
ditional  foreknowledge  is  of  no  higher  kind,  than  what 
creatures  possess,  and,  in  fact,  is  no  foreknowledge  at 
all.  I  may,  for  instance,  resolve  and  determine,  that  I 
will  pay  my  neighbour  such  a  sum  of  money,  if  he 
will  deed  to  me  his  house  and  farm — without  the  least 
foreknowledge,  that  he  will  consent  to  make  the  con¬ 
veyance.  The  divine  election,  therefore,  cannot  be  of 
this  nature. 

It  is  essential  to  your  scheme,  that  the  divine  fore¬ 
knowledge  is  not  the  cause,  but  the  effect  of  the  crea¬ 
ture’s  faith  ;  and  the  divine  purpose,  the  effect  of  the 
divine  foreknowledge.  So  that  here  are  two  effects, 
the  divine  foreknowledge,  and  foreordination,  which 
take  place  eternal  ages  before  the  existence  of  their 
cause  : — and  if  the  creature’s  act  be  the  first  cause, 
then  man  is  eternal  and  supreme,  and  God  dependent 
and  finite.  But  if  man  be  a  dependent  being,  his  faith 
must  be  an  effect — what  then  is  its  cause?  Not  the  di¬ 
vine  foreknowledge,  or  foreordination,  for  these  are 
both  the  effects  of  the  creature’s  faith.  Here  once 
more,  we  come  to  the  tortoise,  and  can  go  no  further. 
Neither  men,  nor  angels  can  answer  the  question. 
Here  we  find  an  effect  standing  alone  in  the  universe, 
and  existing  without  the  being  or  even  possibility  of 
a  cause  :  and  not  only  so,  but  operating  as  the  first 
cause  to  certain  effects  which  existed  from  eternity, 
and  never  had  a  beginning. 

What  a  transporting  consistency  is  presented  us  in 
this  amendment  of  the  doctrine  of  election!  How 
very  remedial  of  the  evils  complained  of !  This  di¬ 
rect  inversion  of  the  natural  order  of  things,  and  in- 


196 


stead  of foreordination,  foreknowledge  and  the  event — 
placing  them,  the  event ,  foreknowledge  and  foreordi¬ 
nation constructs  a  scheme  of  theology  as  rare  and 
wonderful,  as  the  sight  of  a  pyramid  standing  upon  its 
point. 

Now  let  us  bring  the  other  parts  of  the  scheme 
into  view,  and  see  whether  an  equal  consistency  be 
continued  throughout.  You  proceed  thus,  in  your  rea¬ 
soning. — So  that ,  though  they  were  in  this  manner  elec¬ 
ted  from  eternity ,  yet  this  election  continues  in  embryo , 
as  inchoate  as  their  faith,  and  is  not  actually  made , 
until  they  actually  believe.  An  embryotic  election,  or 
a  half  formed  purpose,  gradually  growing  and  pro¬ 
gressing  towards  perfection,  till  at  last  completed  and 
finished  by  an  event  in  time — that  is,  by  an  action  of 
a  dependent,  finite  creature,  I  confess,  exceeds  the  ut¬ 
most  stretch  of  my  feeble  powers  to  conceive  of,  as 
existing  in  the  mind  of  that  Being  who  is  infinite  in 
knowledge  and  understanding.  Infinite  knowledge 
can  admit  of  no  accession  or  diminution — no  succes¬ 
sion  or  change  ;  and  therefore  rejects  the  idea  of  an 
embryotic  purpose — a  purpose  which  can  be  rendered 
more  complete  and  certain,  by  an  after  event.  “Be¬ 
loved  be  not  ignorant  of  this  one  thing,  that  one  day, 
is  with  the  Lord  as  a  thousand  years,  and  a  thousand 
years  as  one  day.”  2.  Peter  iii.  8. — “  The  works  (of 
God)  were  finished  from  the  foundation  of  the  world.” 
Heb.  iv.  3.  If,  therefore,  it  were  possible,  that  there 
could  be  an  embryotic  election,  in  the  divine  mind,  or 
one  inchoate  purpose  from  eternity — it  would  be  im¬ 
possible  that  it  should  be  actually  made  in  time — or 
that  it  should  not  continue  in  embryo,  or  the  same  in¬ 
choate  state,  to  eternity.  The  reverse  of  this  would 
be  a  direct  contradiction  of  the  passages  of  Scripture 
just  adduced,  and  equally  inconsistent  with  reason,  and 
every  correct  view  of  the  divine  perfections.  It  would 
necessarily  imply  a  succession  of  ideas  in  the  divine 
mind,  and  mutability  in  the  divine  character  and  con¬ 
duct.  This  doctrine,  therefore,  like  that  of  a  self  de¬ 
termining  power  in  the  human  will,  effectually  destroys 
itself.  It  represents  the  divine  Being,  as  electing  from 
eternity,  and  yet  not  actually  electing  till  in  time  ;  till 


197 


his  his  purpose  have  an  actual  accomplishment,  in  the 
view  of  creatures ; — or  that  God  chooses  what  to 
choose,  before  he  proceeds  to  make  an  actual  choice. 
No  man  but  he  who  cherishes  the  belief,  of  a  self  de¬ 
termining  power  in  his  own  will,  can  ascribe  such  a 
character  as  this  to  his  God  :  and  the  reason  is  given 
in  the  51st  Psalm, — “  Thou  thoughtest  that,  I  was  al¬ 
together  such  an  one  as  thyself.”  Your  amendment 
of  the  doctrine  of  Election,  I  think,  therefore,  must  be 
given  up.  Instead  of  removing  difficulties,  it  multi¬ 
plies  them.  Every  attentive  and  candid  mind,  must 
see  that  it  is  inconsistent  with  Scripture,  with  reason, 
and  with  itself. 

This  affords  at  the  same  time,  a  general  argument 
of  conclusive  force,  that  the  doctrine  of  Election,  to 
which  you  so  irreconcileably  object,  is  true  and  in¬ 
volves  no  inconsistency.  We  have  no  other  alterna¬ 
tive,  for  these  schemes  are  direct  contrasts  to  each 
other.  If  we  admit,  that  there  is  any  such  thing  as  a 
divine  election  (and  here  the  Bible  stares  upon  us)  one 
or  the  other  of  these,  either  the  one  you  offer,  or  the 
one  you  oppose,  must  be  true.  If  one  be  clearly  shown 
to  be  false,  the  other  is  true.  If  one  falls,  the  other 
must  stand. 

But  I  will  not  dismiss  the  subject  with  this  general 
argument  only,  but  descend  to  distinct  and  particular 
considerations  to  show  that  your  objection  is  as  ground¬ 
less,  as  your  amendment. 

The  objection  is  stated  in  these  general  terms,  and 
afterwards  explained  and  enforced  by  scripture  author¬ 
ities  : — that,  the  elect  are  chosen  of  God  from  eternity, 
and  yet  not  actually  beloved  until  their  actual  regener¬ 
ation,  or  spiritual  birth.  By  the  way,  this  would  not 
be  a  greater  inconsistency,  than  the  plan  of  chosen 
and  not  chosen,  which  you  propose  as  a  remedy.  But, 
Sir,  this  assertion  is  an  utter  mistake.  It  is  no  part, 
or  consequence  of  the  doctrine  of  election,  but  a  per¬ 
version  of  it.  It  is  not  true  in  itself — or  supported  by 
the  comment  which  you  subjoin — or  by  the  passages 
of  Scripture  on  which  you  rely.  It  does  not  follow  in 
the  least,  that  because  the  saints  in  their  natural  state, 
are  totally  depraved  and  destitute  of  holiness,  they  are 

17* 


199 


not,  at  the  same  time,  the  objects  of  the  divine  mercy  ; 
or  that,  because  they  are  by  nature,  children  of  wrath, 
even  as  others,  they  cannot  be,  at  the  same  time,  the 
children  of  God’s  eternal  electing  love  in  distinction 
from  all  others — for  we  have  already  seen,  that  with 
respect  to  the  elect,  general  and  distributive  justice 
are  harmonized  through  the  atonement  of  Christ. 

But  before  I  proceed  to  a  more  particular  view  of 
the  objection,  I  would  lay  down  several  general  prin¬ 
ciples,  essential  to  the  doctrine  and  of  necessary  con¬ 
sideration  to  a  right  understanding  of  it.  And  they 
are  these. 

1.  God’s  last  end  in  the  creation  and  government  of 
the  world,  is  his  own  glory,  or  the  exhibition  of  his 
own  infinitely  perfect  character. 

2.  All  beings  and  things  that  ever  have  existed,  or 
ever  will  exist,  excepting  only  the  divine  Being,  and 
his  eternal  purposes,  considered  abstractly  from  their 
accomplishment — are  but  effects — they  all  have  a  be¬ 
ginning.  God  is  the  only  eternal  Being,  and  the  only 
first  cause. 

Therefore, 

3.  Nothing  can  take  place,  but  as  the  fruit  and  ac¬ 
complishment  of  his  eternal  purpose  ;  and  he  can  be 
actuated,  and  influenced  in  the  formation  of  his  pur¬ 
poses,  by  no  motive  out  of  himself — for  the  effect  can 
never  precede  the  cause. 

From  these  general  principles,  which  are  indisputa¬ 
ble,  the  following  conclusions,  immediately  applying 
to  the  doctrine  of  election,  will  necessarily  follow. 

1.  That  the  holiness  of  the  saints,  is  not  the  reason, 
or  motive  with  God,  for  his  choosing  them  to  eternal 
life.  It  is  not  the  cause  but  the  effect — not  the  ground 
but  the  object  of  the  divine  decree  of  election.  And 
such  is  the  language  of  Scripture.  “  Not  by  works  of 
righteousness  which  we  have  done,  but  according  to 
his  mercy  he  hath  saved  us.”  Titus,  iii.  5. 

And  again — “  According  as  he  hath  chosen  us  in 
him  (Christ)  before  the  foundation  of  the  world  that 
we  should  be  holy  and  without  blame  before  him  in 
love.”  Eph.  i.  4.  Not  because  he  foreknew  that  they 
would  be  holy  :  and 


199 


2.  I  conclude,  that  the  love  of  God  towards  his  elect 
is  uninterrupted,  unchanging  and  eternal  in  the  fullest 
sense.  God  does  neither  begin,  nor  cease  to  love  them. 
He  does  not  love  them  because  they  repent  and  believe, 
but  they  repent  and  believe  because  God  eternally 
loved  them.  And  he  loves  them  as  much  while  in  their 
impenitent  state,  as  in  their  converted  or  glorified 
state  : — as  much  before,  as  after  their  actual  regenera¬ 
tion,  or  spiritual  birth — for  their  personal  character  is 
not  the  ground  of  the  divine  love  towards  them. 

This  is  confirmed  by  the  following  Scriptures.  “We 
love  God  because  he  first  loved  us.”  1.  John  iv.  9. 
Here  is  the  connexion  between  God’s  election,  and  the 
creature’s  holiness,  as  cause  and  effect.  Again,  “  I 
have  loved  thee  with  an  everlasting  love,  therefore, 
with  loving  kindness  have  I  drawn  thee.”  Jerem . 
xxxi.  3. 

What  right,  then,  Sir,  have  you  to  assert,  that  the 
elect  are  not  actually  beloved  of  God,  until  their  actual 
regeneration,  since  his  eternal  and  unchanging  love, 
was  the  only  cause  productive  of  their  regeneration  ? 
It  is  in  Christ ,  that  they  are  eternally  chosen  and  be¬ 
loved  ; — in  Christ  they  are  regenerated,  pardoned,  jus¬ 
tified,  sanctified,  glorified.  The  saints  in  heaven  are 
beloved  of  God  only  as  they  are  in  Christ.  They 
have  no  other  title  to  blessedness.  Their  inherent 
holiness  is  the  effect  and  not  the  ground  of  God’s  fa¬ 
vour.  Were  it  possible  that  their  union  to  Christ 
should  be  dissolved,  they  would  immediately,  upon 
fhat  dissolution,  sink  down  into  eternal  perdition. — 
They  are  accepted  in  the  Beloved.  It  is  because 
Christ  lives,  that  his  people  also  live. 

And  what  is  it  to  the  purpose  for  you  to  assert  from 
the  instruction  of  Rom.  viii.  1.  that  before  they  were 
in  Christ  they  were  under  condemnation — since  they 
were  eternally  in  Christ,  in  the  eye  of  the  divine  pur¬ 
pose,  as  much  before  as  after  the  effects  of  that  pur¬ 
pose  had  taken  place  to  creature  view  ; — for  “  God 
calleth  those  things  that  be  not,  as  though  they  were.” 
Rom.  iv.  17.  Their  walking  after  the  spirit  and  not 
after  the  flesh  is  only  evidential  of  their  being  in 
Christ.  Before  the  purpose  of  God  had  actually  taken 


200 


effect  in  their  regeneration,  it  is  true,  they  walked  after 
the  flesh  only,  and  had  no  evidence  of  their  election — 
yet  they  were  then  as  much  as  afterwards,  the  elect  of 
God.  Their  wicked  conduct  is  as  much  condemned  as 
that  of  others,  and  it  is  punished  too  in  the  various  suf¬ 
ferings  of  Christ,  who  is  the  “  Lamb  of  God,  slain  (in 
the  divine  purpose)  from  the  foundation  of  the  world.” 
Rev.  xiii.  8.  yet  their  persons  were  never  at  any  time 
condemned.  They  were  justified  as  Christ  was  slain — 
from  the  foundation  of  the  world,  or  from  eternity. — 
(l  Who  shall  lay  any  thing  to  the  charge  of  God’s  elect? 
It  is  God  that  justifieth.  Who  is  he  that  condemneth  ? 
It  is  Christ  that  died — yea  rather  that  is  risen  again, 
who  is  even  at  the  right  hand  of  God — who  also  mak- 
eth  intercession  for  us.”  Ronu  viii.  33,  34. 

All  that  I  have  now  said  upon  the  subject  you  might 
have  found  contained  in  the  same  chapter  of  Ephe¬ 
sians,  from  which  you  make  your  quotation,  had  you 
only  read  on  a  few  verses,  and  not  disconnected  a  short 
sentence,  to  make  it  speak  a  different  meaning  from 
what  the  Apostle  intended.  The  saints  by  nature  are 
children  of  wrath,  because  it  is  not  by  nature ,  but  by 
election  that  they  are  in  Christ.  Let  us  hear  the  Apos¬ 
tle’s  explanation  in  the  very  next  words.  “  But  God, 
who  is  rich  in  mercy,  for  the  great  love ,  wherewith  he 
loved  us,  even  when  we  were  dead  in  sins,  hath  quick¬ 
ened  us  together  with  Christ ;  by  grace  ye  are  saved. 
And  hath  raised  us  up  together  and  made  us  sit  togeth¬ 
er  in  heavenly  places  in  Christ  Jesus.  That  in  the 
ages  to  come,  he  might  shew  the  exceeding  riches  c$f 
his  grace,  in  his  kindness  towards  us  through  Christ 
Jesus.  For  by  grace  ye  are  saved  through  faith,  and 
that  not  of  yourselves,  it  is  the  gift  of  God.  Not  of 
works,  lest  any  man  should  boast.  For  we  are  his 
workmanship,  created  in  Christ  Jesus  unto  good  works , 
which  he  hath  before  ordained  that  we  should  walk  in 
them.” 

This  view  of  the  eternal  electing  love  of  God  to  the 
persons  of  his  redeemed  will  tend  to  expose  and  cor¬ 
rect  a  practical  error  unwarily  adopted  by  many  who 
are  real  believers  in  predestination.  It  is  not  uncom¬ 
mon  to  hear  Christians  speak  of  the  Most  High,  as  “  a 


201 


reconciled  God  to  his  people — and  ready  to  be  recon¬ 
ciled  to  sinners,  &c.”  and  even  to  use  these  expres¬ 
sions  in  their  prayers.  But  this  is  evidently  unscrip- 
tural,  and  opposed  to  the  grand  and  fundamental  doc¬ 
trine  of  Election,  rightly  understood.  It  is,  however 
undesigned,  virtually  ascribing  mutability  to  God,  and 
therefore  ought  to  be  disused.  Reconciliation,  neces¬ 
sarily  implies  a  change  in  the  subject  of  it,  from  ha¬ 
tred  to  love,  and  therefore  cannot  apply  to  him,  who 
is  ever  of  one  mind.  The  sinner  is  reconciled  to 
God — but  God  is  never  reconciled  to  the  sinner — for 
his  love  to  his  elect  is  eternal — “  I  have  loved  thee 
with  an  everlasting  love.” 

Your  friend  and  servant  in  Christ, 

Aristarchus. 


LETTER  XVII. 


Dear  Sir, 

Your  next  objection  is  very  common  and  popular. 
It  is  often  made,  and  as  often  been  amply  refuted  ; 
and  yet  it  still  continues  to  be  made,  and  justice  to  the 
cause  of  truth  requires  that  it  again  be  answered.  I 
shall  make  the  attempt,  and  only  request  your  candid 
attention. 

“  This  doctrine  opens  a  door  to  licentiousness.  It 
depreciates  the  importance  of  virtuous  practice,  and 
removes  the  most  engaging  motives  to  holy  living — 
since  it  teaches  that  our  good  works  are  not  the  cause 
of  our  election,  or  the  ground  of  our  reward.  Let  a 
man  who  believes  this  doctrine,  only  imbibe  a  belief 
that  he  was  eternally  elected,  and  the  restraints  of 
fear  are  wholly  enervated — the  comfort  of  hope  dis- 


202 


connected  from  good  works,  and  the  natural  conse¬ 
quence  will  be  that  the  man  feels  sure  of  salvation  in 
living  as  he  lists.” 

These,  my  friend,  are  not  the  consequences,  but  the 
perversion  of  the  doctrine  of  election.  The  objection 
is  grounded  in  ignorance  of  the  nature  and  operation 
of  true  grace,  and  springs  from  the  supreme  selfish¬ 
ness  of  the  corrupt  heart.  Many  who  make  the  ob¬ 
jection,  do  the  most  to  disprove  it,  by  their  own  disso¬ 
lute  and  immoral  practice — while  those  who  conscien¬ 
tiously  embrace  the  doctrine,  are  never  known  to  make 
that  licentious  use  of  it,  of  which  you  complain. 

If  a  man  believes  that  he  is  elected,  while  living  in 
the  allowed  practice  of  wickedness,  he  judges  without 
evidence  from  Scripture  or  reason — shuts  his  eyes 
against  the  clearest  light  of  divine  truth,  and  cherishes 
the  most  unreasonable  and  groundless  delusion.  He 
acts  the  part  of  a  fool,  and  will,  (if  repentance  do  not 
prevent)  be  punished  for  his  enthusiasm  and  pride. — 
None  but  hypocrites  ever  do  or  can  believe,  without 
evidence  that  they  are  elected,  or  improve  the  doctrine 
as  a  motive  to  licentiousness,  under  the  influence  of 
that  belief.  But  shall  the  conduct  of  self-deceiving, 
ungodly  hypocrites  be  brought  to  characterize  the 
humble  Christian — the  elect  of  God,  and  cast  a  re¬ 
proach  upon  the  clearest  revealed  truth  in  his  word? 
The  objection  proves  no  point  so  clearly,  as  that  the 
Objector  is  determined  not  to  believe  or  embrace  the 
doctrine,  let  the  evidence  of  its  truth  be  ever  so  clear 
and  forcible — but  obstinately  to  discard  one  of  the 
most  powerful  motives  to  a  life  of  virtue  and  piety. 
This  is  an  additional  argument  in  favour  of  the  doc¬ 
trine.  That  sentiment  must  be  true,  which  when  right¬ 
ly  understood  every  good  man  will  embrace,  and  eve¬ 
ry  bad  man  oppose.  Scripture,  reason,  and  experi¬ 
ence  all  join  to  disprove  the  objection,  and  show  the 
reverse  of  it,  to  be  truth.  They  unitedly  declare,  that 
the  doctrine  of  Election,  rightly  understood  and  im¬ 
proved,  is  the  most  effectual  antidote  to  licentiousness 
— that  it  appreciates  the  worth  and  importance  of  vir¬ 
tuous  practice,  in  the  highest  possible  degree,  and  af- 


203 


fords  the  only,  and  the  most  engaging  motives  to  holi¬ 
ness  and  purity  of  life. 

The  desire  of  obtaining  any  good,  accompanied  with 
a  certainty  of  success,  will  the  most  powerfully  excite 
to  exertion,  for  obtaining  the  object.  The  assurance 
of  a  harvest  affords  the  highest  encouragement  to  the 
husbandman  to  till  his  ground  and  sow  his  seed.  The 
doctrine  of  election  has  the  same  effect  in  the  practice 
of  virtue.  Our  hope  of  heaven  must  be  in  exact  pro¬ 
portion  to  the  evidence*of  our  election  ;  and  this  evi¬ 
dence  consists  in  and  increases  with  our  conscious  ho¬ 
liness  of  heart  and  life.  “Called  to  be  saints” — saith 
the  apostle — “Chosen  unto  obedience  through  sancti¬ 
fication  of  the  Spirit  and  belief  of  the  truth.”  2  Thess. 
ii.  13.  “Created  in  Christ  Jesus  unto  good  works, 
which  God  hath  before  ordained  that  we  should  walk 
in  them.”  Eph.  ii.  10. 

The  nature  of  true  grace  is  opposed  to  every  sinful 
indulgence.  It  is  persevering  in  holiness,  and  con¬ 
stantly  aspiring  after  greater  and  higher  attainments  in 
the  divine  life.  “  How  shall  we  that  are  dead  unto 
sin  live  any  longer  therein  ?”  is  a  question  put  by  the 
great  apostle,  amounting  to  a  negative  assertion.  It  is 
the  true  language  of  every  sanctified  heart,  “O  that 
my  ways  were  directed  to  keep  thy  statutes. — O  how 
love  I  thy  law.”  If  we  have  any  holiness,  we  have 
evidence  of  God’s  eternal  electing  love.  The  greater 
is  the  degree  of  our  holiness,  the  brighter  the  evidence 
of  our  election,  and  the  higher  the  comforts  of  hope. 
This  will  powerfully  excite  us,  to  use  all  diligence  to 
make  our  calling  and  election  sure.  This  will  cause 
us  to  run  with  patience  the  race  set  before  us.  “  The 
path  of  the  just  is  as  the  shining  light,  which  shineth 
more  and  more  unto  the  perfect  day.”  Prov.  iv.  18. 

The  next  objection  which  you  offer  is  of  a  kindred 
character  but  still  more  revolting  to  the  feelings  of  the 
pious  mind. 

“  The  doctrine  of  predestination  removes  all  encour¬ 
agement  to  the  duty  of  prayer.  As  the  divine  pur¬ 
pose  respect  all  events — are  unchangeable  and  also 
unknown  to  us,  we  cannot  know  but  that  the  subject 
of  our  petition  is  contrary  to  the  will  of  God; — if  it 


204 


be  not,  it  will  certainly  be  effected,  and  our  petioning, 
in  either  case,  would  be  vain.” 

The  secret  purposes  of  God  were  never  designed 
to  be  the  rule  of  our  prayers,  or  the  directory  of  our 
petitions — nor  can  be.  On  the  contrary,  we  may  pray 
with  a  right  heart,  and  be  heard  and  accepted  of  God, 
and  answered  too,  when  the  thing  petitioned  for  is  con¬ 
trary  to  the  will  of  God,  and  can  never  take  place. 
This,  however,  does  not  imply,  that  the  will  of  the 
creature  is  contrary  to  the  wilt  of  God  when  known. 

We  have  several  instances  of  this  kind,  in  the  his¬ 
tory  and  person  of  David.  He  had  set  his  affections 
to  the  house  of  his  God,  and  had  a  great  desire  to  build 
a  temple  to  the  honour  of  his  name  ;  and  accordingly 
made  very  great  preparations  for  it  in  materials  for  the 
building.  Yet  it  was  contrary  to  the  will  of  God,  that 
David  should  build  the  temple.  He  was  afterwards 
strictly  forbidden.  “Thou  shalt  not  build  an  house 
for  my  name,  for  thou  hast  been  a  man  of  war,  and 
hast  shed  much  blood.  ButSolomon  thy  Son,  he  shall 
build  my  house,  and  my  courts.  Nevertheless  thou 
hast  done  well,  that  it  was  in  thine  heart,  to  build  an 
house  unto  the  name  of  the  Lord  thy  God.”  1.  Chron , 
xxviii.  3.  and  2.  Chron.  vi.  8. 

Here  we  see  that  his  desire,  which  is  prayer,  though 
contrary  to  the  unknown  will  of  God  was  yet  an  holy 
desire — an  acceptable  prayer  ;  and  he  was  heard  and 
answered  ; — for  though,  he  was  forbidden  to  build  the 
temple,  himself — yet  the  great  object  of  his  desire, 
which  was  that  a  temple  might  be  built,  was  granted, 
in  the  assurance  given  him,  that  Solomon  his  Son 
should  build  it. 

We  have  another  example  in  point,  in  the  history 
of  David.  After  he  was  reproved  by  the  prophet 
Nathan,  for  his  complicated  and  abominable  wicked¬ 
ness  in  the  matter  of  Uriah — had  confessed  his  sin  and 
was  pardoned — he  was  assured  of  the  divine  purpose, 
respecting  his  child.  “  Howbeit,  because  by  this  deed, 
thou  hast  given  great  occasion  to  the  enemies  of  the 
Lord  to  blaspheme,  the  child  that  is  born  unto  thee, 
shall  surely  die.”  2.  Samuel  xii.  14.  Accordingly  the 
child  was  directly  taken  very  sick,  and  David,  there- 


205 


fore,  besought  God,  for  the  child,  and  fasted  and  lay 
all  night  upon  the  ground  : — he  continued  in  fervent 
supplication,  till  the  seventh  clay,  when  the  child  died. 
The  child  was  now,  no  longer  a  subject  of  prayer  ;  and 
being  informed  of  its  death,  he  discontinued  his  sup¬ 
plications — arose  from  the  earth,  and  washed  and 
anointed  himself,  and  changed  his  apparel,  and  came 
into  the  house  of  the  Lord  and  worshipped  ;  and  when 
he  required,  they  set  bread  before  him  and  he  did  eat.” 
His  servants  inquired  the  reasons  of  this  strange  and 
sudden  alteration  in  his  behaviour,  which  to  them,  ap¬ 
peared  unaccountable  ; — he  observes  to  them, — “  while 
the  child  was  yet  alive,  I  fasted  and  wept,  for  I  said 
who  can  tell  whether  the  Lord  will  be  gracious  unto 
me  ?  But  now  he  is  dead,  wherefore  should  I  fast  ? 
Can  I  bring  him  back  again?”  David  though  assured 
that  the  child  would  die,  yet  was  not  assured  that  it 
would  die,  of  that  particular  sickness:  for  aught  he 
knew,  it  might  recover  of  that,  and  therefore  it  was 
consistent  with  duty  for  him  to  pray  for  its  recovery. 
Yet  had  he  assuredly  known  the  child  must  die  of  that 
sickness,  yet  it  would  have  been  duty  to  pray  for  the 
salvation  of  its  soul.  And  it  appears  that  he  prayed 
for  both  these  objects,  and  in  both  was  heard,  accepted 
and  answered,  though  the  divine  purpose  was  fixed 
and  unchangeable.  It  is  not  essential  to  God’s  accept¬ 
ing  and  answering  the  prayers  of  his  children,  that  he 
actually  confer,  the  identical  thing  petioned  for — nei¬ 
ther  does  it  consist  with  true  prayer  to  make  such  an 
absolute  petition; — but  the  way, — the  manner,  and  the 
thing  itself,  are  all  cheerfully  submitted,  and  referred 
to  the  direction  of  infinite  wisdom. 

God  often  gives  an  answer  to  prayer,  in  the  bestow- 
ment  of  some  other,  and  a  greater  good,  than  the 
thing  actually  desired  and  asked  for.  This  was  the 
case  with  Paul,  when  he  petitioned  for  the  removal  of 
that  thorn  in  his  flesh.  The  subject  of  that  petition 
was  not  granted  ;  yet  his  prayer  was  answered  in  a 
way  that  was  better  for  him.  “My  grace  is  sufficient 
for  thee  ;  for  my  strength  is  made  perfect  in  weakness.” 
2.  Cor.  xii.  9. 


18 


206 


And  so  it  was  with  David  in  the  instance  before  us. 
His  supplication  for  the  natural  life  of  his  child  was 
heard  and  accepted — and  though  the  very  thing  asked 
for,  was  not  granted,  yet  his  prayer  was  answered  in 
another  and  better  way,  as  we  learn  from  the  24th 
verse  immediately  following  the  passage  recited.  It 
was  answered  by  the  birth  of  Solomon,  designed  to  be 
his  successor  upon  the  throne — to  excell  all  in  wisdom 
— to  accomplish  the  great  desire  of  David’s  heart,  the 
building  of  the  temple,  and  who  was  also  a  lineal  an¬ 
cestor  of  Christ,  who  was  all  David’s  salvation,  and  all 
his  desire.  We  have  reason  also  to  believe,  that  Da¬ 
vid’s  prayer  for  the  soul  of  his  child  was  answered,  and 
the  very  subject  of  his  petition  granted.  The  cheerful¬ 
ness  with  which  he’received  the  tidings  of  its  death — the 
comfort  and  satisfaction  he  afterwards  manifested  ;  and 
his  saying,  /  shall  go  to  him — are  all  circumstances, 
which,  if  not  conclusive  evidence,  yet  naturally  lead 
the  mind  to  the  opinion,  that  David  received  in  answer 
to  his  prayer,  a  divine  intimation,  that  the  soul  of  his 
child  was  a  subject  of  salvation. 

The  example  of  Hezekiah’s  prayer,  and  the  answer 
given  to  it  (2.  Kings  xx.)  affords  us  the  same  instruc¬ 
tion  upon  the  subject.  And  also  that  memorable  pray¬ 
er  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ — “  O  my  Father,  if  it  be 
possible,  let  this  cup  pass  from  me — nevertheless,  not 
as  I  will,  but  as  thou  wilt.”  Matthew  xxvi.  39. 

From  all  these  we  learn, 

1.  That  the  divine  purpose,  while  unknown  to  us, 
or  but  imperfectly  revealed,  is  not  designed,  nor  can 
be  improved  by  us,  as  a  rule  or  directory  to  our  peti¬ 
tions  in  prayer.  And  therefore, 

2.  The  immutability  of  the  divine  purposes,  does 
not  clash  with  that  duty,  or  render  it  a  vain  thing  to 
pray. 

Let  us  next  inquire,  whether  our  encouragement  to 
prayer  be  removed,  or  in  any  measure  impaired,  by  the 
doctrine  of  the  divine  decrees. 

That  it  is  not  wholly  removed,  is  already  proved. 
This  idea  is  forever  inadmissible,  while  the  immutabil¬ 
ity  of  the  divine  purpose  is  consistent  with  the  duty  of 
prayer — for  consistency  does  not  exclude,  but  promote 


207 


encouragement.  There  can  be  no  encouragement 
without  it. 

The  only  question,  therefore,  is,  whether  our  en¬ 
couragements  are  really  diminished  by  the  immutabil¬ 
ity  of  the  divine  purposes,  or  whether  they  are  not  as 
great  as  they  would  be,  in  case  the  doctrine  objected 
to  were  wholly  expunged.  These  questions,  I  think, 
are  inseparably  connected)  and  can  admit  of  no  differ¬ 
ent  determination  ; — that  is,  if  the  doctrine  of  decrees 
admit  of  one  degree  of  encouragement  to  the  duty  of 
prayer,  it  must,  for  the  same  reason  admit  of  every 
possible  degree  of  encouragement.  That  property  in 
the  doctrine,  whatever  it  may  be,  which  admits ,  cannot 
operate  to  exclude ,  where  the  thing  to  be  admitted  or 
excluded,  is  precisely  one  and  the  same.  Therefore, 
if  any  encouragement  be  admitted  by  the  doctrine, 
there  is  none  excluded.  If  the  doctrine  of  decrees  ad¬ 
mit  of  encouragement  to  prayer,  then  the  reverse  of 
that  doctrine  excludes  encouragement — and  if  any, 
then  all,  for  the  same  reason.  The  former  must  afford 
the  highest  encouragement — the  latter  exclude  every 
encouragement. 

Give  me  leave,  Sir,  to  say,  that  you  appear  to  have 
quite  overlooked  the  true  nature,  the  real  design,  and 
the  only  end  of  prayer,  when  you  say,  We  cannot 
know  but  that  the  subject  of  our  petition  is  contrary  to 
the  will  of  God; — that,  if  it  be  not,  it  will  certainly  be 
effected  without  our  prayer,  and  our  petitioning,  in 
either  case  would  be  vain.  Does  this  give  us  a  just  idea 
of  prayer?  Is  dictating  rules  of  conduct  to  the  Most 
High,  the  nature  of  prayer?  Is  the  design  of  it,  to 
inform  him  of  our  wants — to  melt  his  heart  into  kind¬ 
ness  and  clemency  ;  and  induce  him  to  change  his  pur¬ 
poses,  by  the  means  of  argument  and  moral  suasion  ? 
And  is  the  end  of  prayer,  the  effectual  accomplish¬ 
ment  of  the  creature’s  will  ?  Far  otherwise — totally 
different.  These  principles,  though  adopted  in  prac¬ 
tice  by  the  blind  multitude,  and  virtually  drawn  into 
theory,  by  their  stupid  reasonings  upon  the  subject, 
are  too  gross,  for  the  explicit  avowal  of  any  rational 
being.  What  then  is  Prayer  ?  To  comprize  both  its 


208 


form  and  essence,  in  one  word,  I  answer,  that,  it  is  the 

expression  of  holy  desires. 

The  nature  of  it  consists  in  a  conformity  of  temper 
to  that  relation  in  which  the  creature  stands  to  God, 
and  his  moral  system  ; — or  a  hearty  acquiescence  in  his 
absolute  dependence  upon  the  will  of  his  Creator. 

The  design  of  prayer  is  by  cherishing  and  strength¬ 
ening  this  moral  temper,  to  prepare  the  creature  to  be 
a  proper  subject,  or  recipient  of  divine  grace.  And  in 
this  view,  prayer  is  one  of  the  most  powerful,  and  ef¬ 
fectual  means  of  sanctification.  It  is  a  duty  in  which 
the  creature  has  the  nearest  access  to  the  mercy-seat 
of  God,  and  by  beholding  his  glory,  is  changed  into 
the  same  image.  Nothing  but  the  unpreparedness  of 
our  hearts,  or  the  unadaptedness  of  our  minds  to  the 
nature  of  moral  good,  bars  ns  from  the  most  ample  re¬ 
ception  of  the  divine  goodness.  Every  man  is  just  as 
happy  as  his  moral  character,  can  possibly  admit. — 
This  natural  unpreparedness  of  our  hearts  for  the  re¬ 
ception  of  divine  grace,  the  duty  of  prayer  is  instituted 
and  designed  as  a  means  of  removing.  Every  holy 
desire  is  not  only  an  expression  of  the  creature’s  con¬ 
formity  to  God,  but  increases  and  strengthens  this 
conformity — expands  the  divine  image  upon  the  soul, 
and  prepares  the  creature  for  a  higher  and  fuller  re¬ 
ception  of  the  divine  beneficence. 

Thus,  the  design  of  prayer  is  to  affect  the  creature 
and  not  God — to  prepare  the  creature  to  receive,  and 
not  to  move  his  Maker  to  give.  And  this  design  is 
effected  by  every  true  prayer  ;  the  language  of  which 
is — O  my  God,  I  am  less  than  the  least  of  all  thy  mer¬ 
cies,  and  unworthy  of  any  favour  at  thine  hands- — but 
if  it  may  consist  with  thine  eternal  purpose ,  grant — 
for  Christ's  sake  : — thy  will  be  done;  and  to  thy  name 
be  all  the  glory.  Such  a  prayer,  when  the  undissem¬ 
bled  language  of  the  heart,  never  fails  of  an  answer. 
“  Ask  and  ye  shall  receive.”  It  is  itself  the  gilt  of 
God,  as  much  as  the  thing  asked  for,  and,  therefore, 
cannot  militate  with  the  unchangable  purposes  of  Je¬ 
hovah.  We  never  pray,  but  when  God  gives  us  the 
spirit  of  prayer.  This  affords  us  the  highest  and  most 
animating  encouragement  to  pray  ; — for,  it  not  only 


209 


prepares  us  to  receive,  but  is  an  earnest,  or  token  to 
us  that  God  will  grant. 

Here  we  may  see  also,  that  the  inseparable  connec¬ 
tion,  between  duty  and  interest,  and  obedience  and 
reward,  is  established,  not  only  by  the  divine  purpose 
and  promise,  but  is  founded  in  the  very  nature  and  re¬ 
lation  of  things— for  when  the  creature  asks,  he  is  pre¬ 
pared  to  receive  :  every  obstacle  is  removed  out  of  the 
way,  and  nothing  can  interrupt  or  obstruct  those  effu¬ 
sions  of  infinite  goodness,  which  flow  as  naturally  and 
as  necessarily  from  God,  as  the  beams  of  light  are 
emitted  from  the  sun. 

The  ultimate  end  of  prayer  is  inseperably  connected 
with  its  immediate  design.  It  is  the  visible  display  of 
God’s  essential  glory,  by  the  sensible  fruits  of  his  be¬ 
nevolence.  As  the  natural  sun,  in  the  centre  of  the 
system,  diffuses  his  kindly  influences  to  all  lesser  bod¬ 
ies,  and  is  seen  and  known  to  be  luminous  through  the 
medium  of  its  own  light,  “The  Lord  God  is  a  Sun. 
He  will  give  grace  and  glory,  and  no  good  thing  will 
he  withhold  from  them  that  walk  uprightly.”  Psalms 
Lxxxiv.  11. 

And  now  let  me  ask,  for  I  want  no  other  answer, 
but  the  still  voice  of  reason  and  conscience — is  this 
temper  of  mind  at  war  with  the  immutability  of  God  ? 
Do  the  eternal  purposes  of  infinite  wisdom  and  good¬ 
ness  blast  the  first  buddings  of  holy  desires — destroy 
every  encouragement,  and  cut  off  all  the  hopes  of  the 
creature  in  his  addresses  to  his  Maker?  Were  the 
Most  High  a  mutable  and  fickle  being — capable  of  con¬ 
ceiving  new  ideas,  and  acting  with  altered  purposes  ; — 
neither  duty  nor  encouragement  could  belong  to  the 
idea  of  prayer.  Every  ground  of  faith,  of  hope,  of 
trust,  and  of  confidence,  would  utterly  vanish,  and  the 
great  Object  of  prayer  be  infinitely  unworthy  to  re¬ 
ceive  from  his  creatures  the  adoration  of  a  God. 

May  the  unchangeable  purposes  of  God;  therefore, 
ever  be  our  high  encouragement  to  the  duty  of  prayer. 

Your  affectionate  friend, 

Aristarchus. 


18* 


* 


LETTER  XVIII. 


Dear  Sir, 

I  am  truly  grieved  to  find  in  the  list  of  your  object 
tions  to  the  divine  appointment  of  all  things,  one  hold¬ 
ing  the  language  of  the  following  : 

“  The  doctrine  of  Election  implies  that  God  hath 
created  a  part  of  mankind  on  purpose  to  damn  them. 

I  reply — God  hath  given  being  to  none  of  his  crea¬ 
tures  without  some  purpose  in  view  ; — and  besure,  it 
was  his  eternal  purpose  for  the  glory  of  his  justice,  in 
effecting  the  greatest  possible  general  good  of  his  sys¬ 
tem,  forever  to  punish  and  destroy  all  the  finally  im¬ 
penitent.  Who  these  should  be  was  also  an  object  of 
his  eternal  decree.  “  The  Lord  hath  made  all  things 
for  himself — yea  even  the  wicked  for  the  day  of  evil*’* 
Prov.  xvi.  4. 

But  this  idea  is  directly  opposed  to  the  spirit  of  the 
objection,  if  by  the  words,  on  'purpose ,  you  mean  that 
the  damnation  of  the  nonelect  is  in  itself  pleasing  to 
God,  and  his  last  end  in  their  creation.  And  this,  I 
think  must  be  your  meaning.  If  it  be  not,  there  is  no 
controversy  between  us.  The  thing  objected  is  grant¬ 
ed.  If  it  be,  it  is  at  once  the  most  unreasonable  ob¬ 
jection  that  ever  was  made  ;  and  brought  as  it  is  against 
an  essential  and  fully  established  doctrine  of  divine 
Revelation,  is  the  vilest  reflection  upon  the  character 
of  God,  and  a  libel  upon  his  word.  It  is  strange  in¬ 
deed,  that  an  objection  clothed  with  the  grossest  absur¬ 
dity,  and  breathing  the  highest  impiety,  should  yet  so 
often  be  heard  from  those  under  the  light  of  the  gos¬ 
pel,  and  even  from  the  publick  instructions  of  many' 
who  appear  in  the  character  of  religious  teachers.  But 
such  is  the  painful  fact.  VYere  it  not,  I  would  treat  it 
with  the  contempt  it  deserves,  and  it  should  have  no 
expression  either  from  my  lips  or  my  pen. 

The  doctrine  of  eternal  election  is  a  doctrine  of  God 


211 


and  as  firmly  established  as  the  pillars  of  his  throne. 
My  conviction  of  this  truth  is  perfect.  I  have  thus 
long  laboured  the  subject  with  patience  and  with  pleas¬ 
ure.  I  have  found  it  to  brighten  with  increasing  con¬ 
viction  at  every  step  I  have  pursued  it — and  if  my  la¬ 
bour  be  unattended  with  any  advantage  or  profit  to 
you,  the  satisfaction  derived  to  myself  from  the  inves¬ 
tigation  and  vindication  of  this  great  and  fundamental 
doctrine  of  Christianity,  will  abundantly  reward  my 
pains.  I  now  neither  wish  for,  nor  will  I  advance  an¬ 
other  argument  in  proof  of  the  doctrine.  But  I  must 
observe,  that  it  gives  no  countenance  to  the  idea  sug¬ 
gested  in  the  present  objection — that  the  misery  of 
creatures  is  pleasing  to  the  most  merciful  God,  and  the 
end  for  which  he  has  given  them  being.  It  would  be 
infinitely  derogatory  to  the  honour  and  dignity  of  the 
divine  character  to  suppose  that  God  should  make 
either  the  happiness  or  the  misery  of  any  part  of  his 
moral  kingdom  his  last  end  in  their  creation.  The 
doctrine  of  Election  teaches  no  such  thing — but  that 
his  own  glory,  in  the  greatest  possible  general  good 
of  his  system,  wras  God’s  last  end  in  creation  ; — this, 
the  grand  object  of  his  eternal  purposes,  and  this,  the 
final  consummation  he  will  effect  from  all  the  works 
of  his  hands.  “  Of  him,  and  through  him,  and  to 
him  are  all  things— to  whom  be  glory  forever.  Amen.” 

Your  next  remark  in  support  of  the  controversy  is 
very  unpleasant,  in  application  to  a  subject  so  solemn 
and  important.  I  am  confident  you  will  retract  it 
■whenever  you  attain  to  a  more  candid  spirit. 

“  All  the  arguments  in  explanation  and  support  of 
these  subjects  of  polemical  divinity — total  depravity — 
eternal  election— efficacious  grace — universal  divine 
agency — moral  necessity  and  natural  liberty,  &c.  are 
metaphysical  and  fine  spun.  The  distinctions  made 
are  too  minute  and  microscopic  for  the  discernment  of 
the  common  eye.  They  are  therefore  more  nice  than 
wise,  more  curious  than  useful.  And  a  religion  which 
cannot  be  understood  or  embraced,  but  by  the  aid  of 
Metaphysics,  cannot  be  calculated  or  designed  for  the 
common  benefit  of  mankind.” 

This,  my  friend,  you  must  be  aware  is  an  objection 
wdiicli  any  one  disposed,  is  able  to  throw  out.  I  con- 


21*2 


sider  it  as  an  implicit  acknowledgement  of  the  truth  of 
those  doctrines  which  you  oppose,  and  a  virtual  relin¬ 
quishment  of  the  controversy.  It  is  an  easy  and  ne¬ 
cessary  substitute  for  argument,  after  every  show  of 
argument  fails  and  the  objector  is  still  determined  to 
disbelieve,  in  opposition  to  the  clearest  demonstration, 
and  though  confuted  never  to  be  convinced.  He  has 
then,  only  to  raise  the  hoot  of  Metaphysics,  to  drown 
the  voice  of  Scripture,  of  Reason,  of  Conscience  and 
common  sense.  These  are  considered  but  a  small  sac¬ 
rifice  to  his  pride,  since  his  purpose  is  answered,  and 
not  only  so,  but  he  can  hug  the  self  flattering  conceit 
of  liberality  of  sentiment,  superior  sagacity,  and  great¬ 
ness  of  mind,  in  affecting  to  despise  the  quibbles  of  a 
trifling  dispute  ;  and  looking  through  all  the  sophis¬ 
try,  and  subtle  chicanery  of  a  subject,  which  alas  !  he 
has  neither  candour  to  discern,  nor  arguments  to  dis¬ 
prove. 

But  what  is  that  frightful  and  yet  trifling  thing — 
Metaphysics  ?  There  are  many  who  use  the  word  as  a 
term  of  reproach,  who  have  as  little  knowledge  of  its 
meaning  as  they  have  of  the  ring  of  Saturn,  or  even  of 
Bible  religion.  They  use  it  only  as  a  blind  to  shut  out 
every  ray  of  truth  from  error’s  dark  retreat,  and  it 
serves  as  a  seal  to  the  bond  by  which  they  are  the  wil¬ 
ling  slaves  of  ignorance  for  life. 

But  what  is  metaphysics  ?  Is  it  the  same  as  sophisti¬ 
cal  reasoning,  or  false  argumentation — making  dis¬ 
tinctions  where  there  is  no  difference,  and  inferring 
consequences  without  any,  or  any  just  premises  ?  If  so, 
let  the  charge  be  substantiated,  by  a  rational  and  fair 
disproof  of  that  sophistical  reasoning — those  ground¬ 
less  distinctions,  and  absurd  consequences  ;  and  then 
stamp  the  odious  brand  of  Metaphysics,  in  open  day 
flight,  and  with  universal  consent. 

And  this  task  need  not  be  declined.  By  the  suppo¬ 
sition,  it  is  neither  impossible,  nor  difficult.  The 
shades  of  sophistry  and  false  reasoning  are  not  imper¬ 
vious  to  the  light  of  truth,  and  the  forcible  sunshine 
of  conviction.  It  is  easy  for  men  of  reason  and  dis¬ 
cernment,  to  detect  the  cunning  arts  of  sophistry,  and 
expose  the  blunders  of  ignorance  and  folly  ;  and  to  a 
mind  possessed  of  benevolence,  and  an  honest  love  of 


213 


the  truth,  it  must  appear  no  less  a  duty,  which  he  owes 
to  the  honour  of  religion,  and  the  general  interests  of 
mankind. 

But  if  the  idea  of  Metaphysics  according  to  this  odi¬ 
ous  sense  of  the  word  be  just,  why  is  it  honoured  with 
the  rank  of  a  science — made  a  distinct  branch  of  clas¬ 
sical  literature,  and  one  important  object  of  liberal  ed¬ 
ucation  ?  They  who  entertain  so  unfavorable  an  idea 
of  Metaphysics,  surely  cannot  be  so  inconsistent  as  to 
wish,  either  for  themselves,  or  their  sons,  to  mispend 
the  golden  hours  of  morning  life,  for  so  unworthy  and 
mischievous  a  purpose,  as  the  acquisition  of  such  a 
science. 

But  if,  on  the  contrary,  the  idea  of  Metaphysics, 
rightly  understood,  is  that  of  a  science  designed  to  de¬ 
tect  the  arts  and  prevent  the  effects  of  sophistry,  and 
superficial  reasoning ; — that  it  consists  in  drawing  ar¬ 
guments  from  the  nature,  relation  and  fitness  of  things, 
in  a  rational  and  well  connected  chain  of  close  and 
critical  reasoning,  and  nice  and  accurate  distinctions, 
which  is  indeed  the  case,  why  then  the  objection  is  less 
invidious  than  was  intended,  and  1  might  feel  myself 
rather  flattered  than  otherwise,  by  the  charge  oi Meta¬ 
physics  :  for  this,  at  the  same  time  would  effectually 
disprove  the  reproachful  part  of  the  objection,  and 
show  that  the  terms,  fine  spun ,  more  nice  than  wise — 
more  curious  than  useful  6pc — together  with  the  ulti¬ 
mate  conclusion  thence  deduced,  is  not  metaphiscal 
reasoning,  but  the  fruits  of  a  deperate  attempt  to  impose 
upon  the  understanding  by  dressing  up  truth  in  false 
and  odious  colours. 

And  in  what  different  light,  can  they  be  viewed  ? 
Is  that  mode  of  reasoning  which  stands  opposed  to 
sophistry,  too  fine  spun  to  be  true — too  nice  to  be  wise 
— too  curious  to  be  useful  ?  This  once  admitted  would 
leave  no  distinction  between  fair  reasoning  and  false. 
Is  truth  rendered  less  clear  and  perceptible  to  the  com¬ 
mon  eye,  in  the  same  proportion  as  it  is  accurately  de¬ 
scribed  and  thoroughly  distinguished  from  all  its  coun¬ 
terfeits?  This  would  be  placing  mankind  in  afar 
more  deplorable  situation,  than  the  most  rigid  votaries 
of  total  depravity  and  eternal  election,  ever  thought  of 
describing  them.  All  attempts  to  instruct  them  would 


214 


be  worse  than  in  vain.  Their  ignorance  would  be  a3 
necessary  as  their  being,  and  continue  to  increase  in 
proportion  to  the  knowledge  and  the  degree  of  light 
actually  set  before  them. 

If  the  system  of  truth  be  connected  throughout,  and 
every  part  be  essential  to  the  perfection  of  the  whole, 
will  the  beauties  of  truth  fade  away,  and  lose  their  lus¬ 
tre  in  proportion  to  the  clearness  in  which  they  are 
brpught  into  view  ?  Will  the  conviction  of  this  con¬ 
nection  and  consistency  be  utterly  lost  by  a  thorough 
knowledge  of  the  system  ? 

If  the  Bible  contain  a  religion  from  God,  the  infinite 
source  of  wisdom,  is  the  study  of  it  an  exercise  more 
nice  than  wise ,  and  a  right  understanding  of  it  an  ob¬ 
ject  more  curious  than  useful  ?  Is  it  not  duty  to  study 
it  with  attention — to  search  the  Scriptures  with  accu¬ 
racy  and  diligence,  to  know  whether  these  things  be 
so?  Is  it  a  religion  which  cannot  abide  the  test  of 
metaphysical  investigation,  but  the  more  closely  it  is 
examined,  and  the  more  clearly  explained,  the  less  ca¬ 
pable  it  is  of  being  understood,  and  the  farther  remo¬ 
ved  from  the  discernment  of  the  common  eye?  This 
idea  is  opposed  to  the  reason  of  every  one,  however 
pleasing  it  may  be  to  the  feelings  of  some  as  opera¬ 
ting  to  justify  their  neglect  of  the  Bible,  and  their 
practical  inattention  to  every  truth  and  duty  which  it 
contains, 

The  Bible  is  not  in  itself  a  sealed  letter.  It  is  ad¬ 
dressed  to  the  understanding  and  adapted  to  the  capa¬ 
cities  of  mankind,  and  it  is  owing  alone  to  their  wilful 
blindness,  that  they  do  not  understand  all  the  doctrines 
and  duties  which  it  inculcates.  It  is  so  plain  a  path 
that  the  way-faring  man,  though  a  fool  need  not  err 
therein.  He  that  runs  may  read,  and  he  that  reads 
may  understand. — Yet  it  is  not  to  be  understood  with¬ 
out  attention.  “  If  thou  incline  thine  ear  unto  wisdom, 
and  apply  thine  heart  to  understanding — yea  if  thou 
liftest  up  thy  voice  for  understanding  ;  then  shalt  thou 
understand  the  fear  of  the  Lord,  and  find  the  knowl¬ 
edge  of  God”  Prov.  ii.  2 — 5.  It  is  only  the  inattention 
of  mankind— their  perversion  of  Scripture — their 
darkening  counsel  by  words  without  knowledge,  that 


215 


obscures  true  religion  from  the  discernment  either  of 
the  learned  or  the  common  eye.  This  only  occasions 
the  necessity  of  metaphysical  reasonings — of  nice  and 
critical  distinctions,  and  laborious  investigation,  to 
guard  our  feet  from  the  paths  of  error, — to  dispel  the 
clouds  of  atheism,  ignorance  and  darkness,  and  exhibit 
truth  to  the  mental  eye,  in  its  own  native  lustre  and 
beauty. 

Is,  then,  the  object  of  metaphysical  reasoning,  when 
applied  to  religion  of  a  light  and  trifling  nature?  Are 
the  doctrines  in  controversy  so  uninteresting  to  man¬ 
kind  as  to  be  beneath  their  notice  and  unworthy  of  a 
single  inquiry,  whether  they  be  true  or  false,  when  the 
question  to  be  determined  by  that  inquiry  is  no  other, 
and  of  no  less  importance,  than  this,  shall  we  trust 
in  God,  or  in  ourselves  for  salvation?  Is  not  this  a 
question  of  importance  to  mankind,  and  the  right  de¬ 
termination  of  it  calculated  and  designed  for  their  com¬ 
mon  benefit? 

But  after  all,  Sir,  it  is  a  fact  of  which  you  ought  to 
be  apprized  that  this  objection  is  wholly  misapplied. 
It  has  an  opposite  direction,  and  wounds  what  it  was 
designed  to  defend.  Yes,  Sir,  give  me  leave  to  say, 
you  have  mistaken  your  weapon,  or  rather  the  art  of 
using  it.  You  have  unhappily  seized  your  sword  by 
its  point,  and  are  thrusting  with  the  hilt.  Your  right 
to  the  objection  is  disputed  ;  it  belongs  to  the  side 
which  you  oppose.  The  votaries  of  your  creed,  are 
they  who,  in  their  reasonings  upon  the  doctrines  of 
grace,  are  metaphysical  and  fine  spun.  Their  distinc¬ 
tions  are  indeed  too  minute  and  microscopic  for  the 
discernment  of  the  common  eve  ;  and  hence  when 
pressed  with  the  plain  truth,  the  complaint  is  so  often 
heard  of  being  misunderstood.  Like  the  responses  of 
the  Delphic  Oracle,  they  may  be  interpreted  as  best 
suits  the  occasion. 

An  error  as  ancient  almost  a3  Christianity,  dressed 
in  a  new  garb,  and  shrouded  in  mysticism  and  mental 
philosophy,  is  now  presented  to  the  churches,  and 
hailed  by  many  as  ari  important  improvement  in  Chris¬ 
tian  theology,  and  marking  a  new  era  in  the  gospel 
church.  We  have  for  years  been  amused  and  perplex- 


216 


ed  with  learned  and  philosophical  sermons  and  trea¬ 
tises,  calculated  to  bewilder  the  minds,  and  subvert  the 
faith  of  the  orthodox.  And  now  may  we  not  examine 
the  subject,  with  the  privilege  of  judging  and  deter¬ 
mining  for  ourselves — and  if  we  attempt  to  avail  our¬ 
selves  of  this  privilege,  must  we  be  met  at  the  thresh¬ 
old  of  inquiry,  with  the  cry  of  metaphysics,  and  put 
down  as  wanton  disturbers  of  the  peace  and  union  of 
the  churches  ?  The  painful  truth  is,  we  are  forced  to 
resort  to  metaphysical  reasoning  to  parry  the  attacks 
and  expose  the  arts  of  sophistry  ; — to  dispel  the  mists 
of  error,  and  defend  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the 
saints  :  and  however  fond  of  peace  and  union,  we  dare 
not  shrink  from  a  task,  which  present  duty  and  the 
cause  of  truth,  so  imperiously  require.  It  is  time  that 
the  religious  publick  should  be  disabused  of  this  blind¬ 
ing  delusion,  and  the  clear  light  of  truth  be  brought  to 
shine  upon  it.  “  The  prophet  that  hath  a  dream,  let 
him  tell  a  dream  ;  and  he  that  hath  my  word,  let  him 
speak  my  word  faithfully  ; — what  is  the  chaff  to  the 
wheat  saith  the  Lord.”  Jer.  xxiii.  28. 

But  one  more  objection  remains,  when  all  others  fail. 
It  is  one  of  sovereign  efficacy  to  flatter  the  pride,  cher¬ 
ish  the  sloth,  and  seal  the  stupidity  and  ignorance  of 
men,  I  will  state  it  in  your  own  words,  and  then, 
with  a  few  remarks,  close  this  protracted  correspond¬ 
ence. 

“  These  are  unproffitable  and  mischievous  doctrines, 
however  true  they  may  be.  They  will  ever  be  oppo¬ 
sed  by  the  generality  of  mankind.  They  have  no  ten¬ 
dency  to  the  important  ends  of  peace  and  harmony  in 
society,  but,  on  the  contrary  to  set  mankind  together 
by  the  ears,  and  to  turn  the  world  upside  down. 

To  inculcate  the  practical  duties  of  morality,  in  the 
various  relations  of  human  life,  would  much  better  an¬ 
swer  the  purpose  of  promoting  the  peace  and  happi¬ 
ness  of  mankind.” 

If  the  argument  which  you  have  here  offered,  dis¬ 
prove  any  thing,  it  disproves  every  thing,  and  to  be 
consistent  with  yourself,  you  must  discard  the  whole 
of  Revealed  Religion  ;  for  by  far  the  greater  part  of 
mankind  are  infidels.  And  where  let  me  ask  you, 


217 


would  now  have  been  our  knowledge  of  the  gospel, 
and  our  moral  distinction  from  the  heathen,  had  the 
Apostle’s  and  primitive  preachers  of  Christianity,  im¬ 
bibed  your  sentiment,  and  consulted  the  peace  and  har- 
mony  of  society,  by  waiting  till  mankind  were  all  dis¬ 
posed  cordially  to  embrace  the  gospel,  before  they 
taught  them  its  essential  and  distinguishing  doctrine  ? 
The  stupid  calm  of  Jewish  infidelity,  and  Pagan  idola¬ 
try  would  have  been  continued — and  they  might  have 
escaped  the  rage  of  persecution,  and  the  flames  of 
martyrdom — but  the  gospel  had  died  in  its  cradle,  and 
the  reign  of  heathenism,  been  uninterrupted  and  uni¬ 
versal.  If  no  truth  be  profitable,  or  advisable  to  be  in¬ 
culcated,  but  what  meets  with  the  ready  belief  and  ac¬ 
ceptance  of  mankind,  we  have  then,  no  further  use  for 
the  Bible — for  all  the  distinguishing  doctrines  of  it, 
have  been  and  are  to  the  present  day,  disbelieved  and 
opposed  by  the  generality  of  mankind  under  the  light 
of  the  gospel.  The  fact  is,  that  every  truth  of  the  Bi¬ 
ble  has  successively  been  brought  into  controversy, 
and  by  controversy  been  investigated  and  established. 
Every  friend  of  truth  must  be  a  friend  to  candid  inqui¬ 
ry,  and  dispassionate  controversy.  It  is  the  means 
whicli  God  has  used  to  promote  the  knowledge  ofhis 
truth — increase  the  purity  of  his  church,  and  extend 
the  blessings  of  his  salvation.  How  much  has  the 
knowledge  of  divine  truth  been  increased,  diffused  and 
established  by  the  able  divines  of  the  last  Century — - 
the  controversial  writings  of  Dwight,  Strong,  Smalley, 
West,  Bellamy,  Hopkins,  and  especially  of  the  immor¬ 
tal  Edwards, — the  Paul  of  modern  days — whose  in¬ 
comparable  treatises  on  original  sin — on  the  affections 
— the  nature  of  moral  virtue — the  freedom  of  the  will — 
and  justification  by  faith,  will  remain  standard  works, 
while  Christ  has  a  church  on  earth. 

Does  it  follow  from  all  this,  that  the  distinguishing 
doctrines  of  the  gospel  which  pertain  to  salvation  are 
unprofitable,  yea  too  mischievous  to  be  taught,  and  of 
no  importance  for  mankind  to  hear  any  thing  about 
them  ?  It  is  now  eighteen  hundred  years  since  the 
Saviour  died — arose  from  the  dead  and  commissioned 
his  Apostles  to  preach  his  religion  to  the  world- — since 

19 


218 


the  gospel  was  promulgated — and  the  canon  of  Scrip¬ 
ture  completed ;  and  yet  mankind  are  opposed  to  the 
truths  of  the  gospel,  and  they  are  unprofitable  to  be 
taught.  How  much  longer  is  it  desirable  and  neces¬ 
sary  that  they  should  be  kept  in  ignorance,  and  in¬ 
structed  only  out  of  the  morals  of  Seneca  ?  How  long 
will  it  be  before  they  may  know  the  truth  ? 

Let  us  again,  for  a  moment,  look  back  to  the  primi¬ 
tive  age  of  Christianity.  The  gospel  was  violently  op¬ 
posed,  in  its  first  promulgation,  as  well  as  since.  It 
was  a  stumbling  block  to  the  Jews,  and  to  the  Greeks 
foolishness.  The  Apostles  were  accused  of  disturbing 
the  peace  and  happiness  of  society,  and  even  of  turn¬ 
ing  the  world  upside  down.  Did  they  for  these  rea¬ 
sons  desist  from  preaching  those  important  truths, 
which  were  so  generally  and  greatly  displeasing  ? — 
Did  they  thence  conclude  that  all  farther  attempts  to 
teach  mankind,  that  only  name  given  under  heaven  by 
which  they  could  be  saved  would  be  unprofitable,  and 
therefore  they  had  better  lay  aside  the  gospel,  and 
preach  only  the  religion  of  nature,  the  practical  du¬ 
ties  of  morality,  in  the  various  relations  of  human  life  ? 
No.  Their  common  and  canstant  motto  was,  If  we 
seek  to  please  men,  we  are  no  longer  the  servants  of 
Jesus  Christ. 

The  duties  of  morality  have  their  importance  in  so¬ 
ciety;  and  he  who  seeks  to  discredit  them,  opposes  its 
best  interest.  But  they  are  also,  the  genuine  and  ne¬ 
cessary  fruits  only  of  a  heart  that  is  warmed  with  the 
influence  of  Christianity,  conformed  to  God,  and  in 
love  with  his  truth.  Religion  is  to  morality  as  the 
fountain  to  its  stream,  or  the  tree  to  its  fruit.  The  sur¬ 
est  way  of  promoting  morality,  and  by  that  the  peace  and 
happiness  of  society,  is  to  make  men  religious ,  lovers 
at  heart  of  the  divine  character.  And  experience 
proves  that  this  is  the  only  way.  And  this  can  be 
done  but  by  disseminating  the  knowledge  and  belief  of 
the  Truth.  To  preach  or  practice  morality  without 
religion,  is  like  supplying  the  fountain  with  its  stream, 
after  the  former  be  dry.  "it  is  the  direct  way  to  estab¬ 
lish  hypocrisy  in  the  comfort  of  that  hope,  which 
“  shall  be  like  the  giving  up  of  the  ghost.” 


Peace  is  indeed  desirable,  but  not  without  purity. 
u  The  wisdom  that  is  from  above,  is  first  pure  then 
peaceable ,  gentle,  easy  to  be  entreated,  full  of  mercy 
and  good  fruits,  without  partiality,  and  without  hypo¬ 
crisy.” 

And  now,  my  friend,  to  conclude,  I  beseech  you,  not 
to  dismiss  the  subject  hastily,  or  form  your  judgment 
upon  only  a  cursory  and  superficial  examination — but 
to  think  closely,  examine  thoroughly,  and  judge  im¬ 
partially.  For  truth  is  a  gem,  whose  price  is  above 
rubies,  and  the  most  fine  gold  is  not  to  be  compared 
with  it.  An  establishment  in  the  truth  is  the  most  im¬ 
portant  attainment  of  a  rational  being.  It  is  absolute¬ 
ly  necessary  to  the  acquisition  of  true  and  permanent 
happiness. 

These  doctrines,  if  true,  you  cannot  hesitate  to  ackowl- 
edge  are  all  important.  They  are  the  fundamental 
principles  of  all  revealed  religion.  A  system,  there¬ 
fore,  which  excludes  them,  must  stand  upon  no  other, 
or  better  foundation,  than  sand. 

I  intreat  you  also  to  guard  against  the  pride  of  opin¬ 
ion,  which  often  effectually  resists  the  conviction  of 
truth,  when  that  conviction  is  opposed  to  favourite  sen¬ 
timents  already  imbibed  and  professed. 

This  pride,  for  certainly  it  deserves  the  name,  is  one 
of  the  many  infirmities  of  our  nature,  and  in  some  de¬ 
gree  common  to  us  all,  but,  at  the  same  time,  is  direct¬ 
ly  opposed  to  candid  investigation,  and  therefore,  the 
most  dangerous  obstruction  to  the  knowledge  of  truth. 
For  this  reason  only  is  the  caution  given,  and  not  be¬ 
cause  the  writer  considers  himself  more  free  from  this 
infirmity,  than  the  friend  whom  he  addresses. 

Whether  in  the  present  discussion  I  have  been  so 
happy  as  to  escape  the  influence  of  this  blinding  prin¬ 
ciple,  so  far  as  essentially  to  promote  the  knowledge  of 
scripture  truth, — the  Scriptures  alone  must  determine. 
There  is  no  other  standard,  to  which  we  can  with  safe¬ 
ty  resort.  My  sentiments  or  yours  are  not  the  more 
true  or  false,  because  they  are  mine  or  yours.  The 
opinion  of  a  mortal  worm  cannot  be  the  standard  of 
eternal  truth. 


220 


Sensible  of  this,  I  have  endeavoured  to  shun  even 
the  appearance  of  dogmatism,  and  have  been  careful 
in  every  sentiment,  1  have  advanced,  if  a  controversi¬ 
al  point,  to  fetch  my  arguments  directly  from  the  stan¬ 
dard  of  truth  and  to  recite  at  large  the  very  passage  or 
passages  of  Scripture  upon  which  I  ground  my  belief. 

The  manner,  however,  in  which  I  have  conducted 
this  correspondence,  doubtless  needs,  in  many  instan¬ 
ces  the  mantle  of  charity  to  be  spread  over  its  imper¬ 
fections.  But,  if  in  any  instance,  I  have  expressed 
myself  with  an  unbecoming  warmth,  or  in  language 
savouring  too  little  of  tenderness  and  a  kind  respect 
for  your  different  feelings  and  sentiments — be  assured 
that  it  proceeded  from  the  excess  of  honest  frankness, 
and  not  in  the  least  from  a  spirit  of  invective.  Exer¬ 
cise,  therefore,  that  charity  which  is  not  easily  provo¬ 
ked,  and  let  not  the  cause  of  truth  be  prejudiced,  be¬ 
cause  its  advocate  is  imperfect. 

You  cannot,  my  friend,  be  too  strictly  guarded 
against  a  certain  wide  spread  evil  in  our  country,  and 
which  has  done  incalculable  mischief  to  the  cause  of 
truth.  Its  baleful  influence  is  felt  by  the  pious  as  well 
as  the  profane.  I  mean  the  indulgence  of  a  strong  and 
blinding  prejudice  against  any  doctrine  or  sett  of  doc¬ 
trines,  and  affixing  to  it  the  name  of  its  distinguished 
advocate  as  a  term  of  reproach,  and  as  the  only  reason 
of  rejectingit,  even  without  examination.  It  is  deeply  to 
be  regretted,  as  well  as  decidedly  condemned  as  uncan- 
did  and  unchristian,  that  the  venerable  name  of  Hop¬ 
kins  presents  an  example  of  this  degrading  character. 
Hopkinsianism  has  become  a  term  of  reproach,  both 
with  the  friends  and  enemies  of  truth  ;  and  by  many 
of  the  latter,  who  have  never  read  his  writings,  and  are 
profoundly  ignorant  of  the  doctrines  he  taught,  it  is 
used  as  a  shield  and  a  sword  against  the  distinguishing 
doctrines  of  the  gospel,  —  a  watch  word,  or  an  alarm 
bell,  denouncing  execration  against  every  religious 
sentiment  obnoxious  to  their  own  views  and  feelings. 
But  what  is  the  chaff  to  the  wheat  ?  What  is  the  name 
of  Hopkins  as  a  criterion  either  of  truth  or  falsehood? 
He  was  an  eminent  divine  of  the  last  Century — an 
able  defender  of  the  truth — and  the  enemies  of  Calvi- 


221 


rustic  doctrine,  unable  to  oppose  him  by  argument, 
accomplish  their  object,  more  effectually  by  opprobium 
and  invective. — Personal  as  well  as  sectarian  prejudi¬ 
ces  ought  to  be  most  carefully  shunned.  The  charac¬ 
ters  either  of  individuals  or  of  parties,  should  never 
be  brought  into  view  as  the  criteria  of  truth.  These 
are  intirely  out  of  account  with  the  candid  and  honest 
inquirer.  Youth  stands  upon  its  own  base.  Blessed 
be  God,  we  have  a  better  and  safer  standard  than  the 
opinions  or  characters  of  men.  “  To  the  law  and  the 
testimony.  If  they  speak  not  according  to  this  word, 
it  is  because  there  is  no  light  in  them.” 

Revolve  then  the  whole  subject.  Add  to  it  all  those 
reflections  which  your  own  mind  may  suggest  ;  and 
for  the  acquisition  of  truth,  make  one  strenuous  effort, 
beyond  the  reach  of  popular  theology,  party  prejudice, 
or  self-opinionated  wisdom. 

Take  into  one  collective  and  comprehensive  view, 
the  several  parts  of  that  widely  extended  system  of 
doctrines,  which  has  been  presented  you  in  these  let¬ 
ters,  and  see  if  there  be  not  a  perfect  harmony  through¬ 
out,  between  one  part  and  another,  and  between  each 
part  and  the  whole  :  whether  they  do  not  all  coalesce 
and  brighten  in  composition  like  the  vivid  colours  in 
the  etherial  bow  ;  and  like  a  solid  well  connected  arch, 
be  found  to  gain  strength  in  proportion  to  the  super¬ 
incumbent  pressure  of  objections. 

If  this  conviction  be  the  fruit  of  your  examination,  as 
it  is  now  of  mine,  the  system  must  then  appear  to  you 
with  equal  clearness  as  the  only  system  of  scripture 
truth,  and  no  longer  rejected  as  the  invention  of  man, 
be  readily  embraced  as  the  wisdom  of  God. 

May  the  Divine  Spirit  lead  you  into  the  knowledge 
of  his  truth  ;  and  prepare  us  each  for  the  eternal  king¬ 
dom  of  the  Redeemer,  is  the  earnest  prayer  of  your 
friend  and  servant  in  Christ. 


Aristarchus. 


ERRATA. 


Page  52,  8th  line  from  top,  for  doctrine ,  read  objection . 
page  62,  7th  line  from  bottom,  for  portion ,  read  potion. 

Page  68,  4th  line  from  bottom,  for  regenerate ,  read  unregenerats. 
Page  73,  21st  line  from  top,  for  have ,  read  are. 

Page  80,  20th  line  from  top,  between  agency  and  are ,  read  as. 

Page  83, 14th  line  from  bottom,  for  continuation ,  read  combination 
Page  86’,  18th  line  from  bottom,  for  direct ,  read  divert. 

Page  "  6th  line  from  bottom,  for  Saul,  read  Paul,: 

Page  95,  22d  line  from  top,  before  moral,  read  his. 

Page  124,  7th  line  from’ top,  for  dashing,  read  dashing. 

Page  125,  8th  line  from  top,  for  last]  read  least. 

Page  “  12th  line  from  top,  after  law,  read  is. 

Page  126,  5th  line  from  bottom,  for  ecouraging,  read  encouraging. 
Page  151,  5th  line  from  bottom,  for  woring,  read  working. 

Page  155.  9th  line  from  top,  for  germs,  read  genus. 

Page  176'  16th  line  from  top,  for  erace,  read  erase. 

Page  191,  21st  line  from  top,  for  servents,  read  servants. 

Page  197,  1st  line  at  top,  one  his  to  be  taken  out. 

Page  204,  1st  line  at  top,  for  petioning,  read  petitioning. 

Page  216,  15th  line  from  bottom,  for  unprojfitable,  read  unprofitable . 
Page  217,  3d  line  from  top,  for  Apostle's,  read  Apostles. 

Page  221,  8th  line  from  top,  for  Youth,  read  Truth . 


* 


w 


V 


* 


- 


■ 


. 


I 


I 


■*v 


♦ 


V- 


Princeton 


Theological  Seminary-Speer 


012  01012  7621 


